A couple of months back, I wrote a post [german] in which I argued that the "poking" function on Facebook had been so successful at the beginning (and isn't anymore) because it is essentially a form of communication without a predefined message - which was a good thing on a new platform where people didn't know how and with whom to interact. Poking then was a way of contacting someone without revealing any intentions; the receiver could interpret the "poke" however he or she wanted. As the rules of social behaviour on platforms like Facebook became more refined, the attractiveness of this communication form declined (although in the 24 hours after I had written this, I was poked about 25 times).

Recently, however, it occurred to me that the "Like" function that Facebook had copied from FriendFeed, has very similar features. It, too, is a form of communication without any inherent message, its only difference to the "poking" being that it is not directed towards people, but rather their updates. It allows you to interact even if you don't have something specific to say; or are unsure of what you want to say; or just want to leave it open what exactly you're saying. The 80 people on Facebook that have recently "liked" a NYT story about the bombings in Indonesia were probably not supporters of terrorism;  rather, they liked the reporting and not the fact; or they wanted to raise awareness to the story; or they were just bored and clicked on something. It is impossible to know whether people who "like" something really like that thing, already because of the simple fact that there is no "dislike" button with which one could express disagreement (there is only an "unlike" button; I'm still waiting for the right situation to tell someone "I unlike you").

What the "Like" function did, essentially, is to lower the barriers for online interactions even further; a trend that is going on already for some time now. First, there was blogging, which allowed for immediate and very personal writing. Then came Twitter, and it became possible to throw out simple short lines; Facebook followed suit with its redesigned status update function. But as simple as these communication forms are, one has still to, you know, SAY something. With the "Like" function (and many similar tools on other services), even this barrier is removed. Communication is stripped down to a simple, essentially purpose-free interaction. It is, if you will, "the medium is the message" in its purest form because there is barely any message left.

Of course, this need not be a bad thing: It's not that people would replace meaningful conversations with lots of "likes". Just like blogging and tweeting, the "liking" simply adds another layer to an already rather complex system of online communications.