Accidental criticism of someone doing a nice thing
I don’t want to criticise people doing a good spirited thing. So, I won’t criticise the person who liked a picture of my cousin’s missing dogs on Fleecebook. I won’t add that she wrote a comment underneath saying that she only like it so that her friends would also see the post – which appealed to people to look out for said dogs. And I won’t then say that write next to where you click to like a picture on Farcebeak is the word share. I won’t say that given the choice of liking a status about some missing animals and SHARING the same thing one seems more obvious than the other. I certainly won’t be adding that given the choice of it possibly looking like you like the fact that a friend has lost their dogs and looking like you want to share the thing then perhaps sharing it is the better choice, especially when you are aware that it looks bad or you wouldn’t go writing that ‘I’m just doing it to help’ explanation under the picture. I think she ate my cousin’s dogs and was just doing this to give it the lemon. Nice.
I’m not sure the above description stands without some pictorial support. Let me knock something up:
See below: a screen grab of the offending social network activity. In the interest of editorial honesty, the following changes have been made (to preserve the integrity of the scenario):
- [FILMS sidebar] Harry Potter, title change —> Dirty Harry
- [TV PROGRAMMES sidebar] Grand Designs, title change —-> Shed Defence
- [TV PROGRAMMES sidebar] 10 Years Younger, title change —-> Owl Date
- [PICTURE CAPTION] dogs, text change —-> two on fire dustbins
- [PICTURE CAPTION] Brushes, text change —-> Trevor and Simon
- [SOCIAL NETWORK ACTIVITY] XXXXXXXXXXX (my mum as it goes), name change —-> The Artist Formerly Known as Prince
- [SOCIAL NETWORK ACTIVITY] XXXXXXXX, name change —->Vince McMahon from Wrestling
- [SOCIAL NETWORK ACTIVITY] NAME DELETED; Caption “I hope you get them back sweet xxxx” left as a mark of respect for the since confirmed alive dogs.