“I like it on the floor.” “I like it on the dishwasher.” “I like it on my faux-sheepskin rug.” Such euphemistic and ubiquitous phrases have been awash on the ether-world of Facebook recently; their secret meaning only known and closely protected by female guardians. Yet men need no longer wonder at what the “it” in question potentially refers to. The “I like it on…” movement has been unmasked as a breast cancer awareness campaign, where the “it” is merely harkening to a handbag. It’s what we were all thinking anyway. 
Yet while such a campaign has created hours of cyber double entendres and punnery, it has brought into question the success and validity of viral internet campaigns. Can merely typing a status substitute for genuine activism for a charitable cause? Can the offering of “I like it on” really spark a revolution or spur the masses into action? Diseases won’t be cured by the tap-tap of a keyboard; unless of course that keyboard is hooked up to some amazing super-computer where the puzzles of the human genome can be unravelled and marvelled at within the confines of a bedroom.    
Undoubtedly, viral charity campaigns have a purpose in two regards; to primarily create awareness for their cause and then to raise donations. In this regard, there have been many examples of hugely worthwhile causes being plastered across social networking sites with great success. The drive to publicise World Aids Day on Facebook was met with a hugely positive response, and HIV-related organisations noted a surge in donations in correlation to the campaign.
Yet social networking is a fickle, cruel mistress. Popularity and exposure of a cause or charity doesn’t necessarily equate to increased donations. For instance, in the case of the “I like it on” cult, according to the Internal Revenue Service, of the 350 breast cancer-related charities, none have reported an increase in donations as a result of the campaign. Never, at any point, have web-links to a breast-cancer site or donation page been advertised across Facebook, which has prevented interest and speculation from evolving into anything more than confusion. In the end, it was only constant male quizzing that finally led to loose-tongued girls revealing the whole point behind their saucy statuses.    
Which raises another issue surrounding internet charity campaigns: alienation of audience. While some campaigns do need to be tailor-made to specific audiences, a clandestine approach can become a double-edged sword.
If the secondary aim of a charity-drive is to raise funding, estranging potential donors ultimately harms the overall success of the operation. For instance, while breast cancer awareness should, undoubtedly, be more orientated to a female viewership, it should be acknowledged that men also suffer the tragic repercussions of the disease, as well as contribute invaluable voluntary hours and money to researching its cure. This is why the “I like it” campaign has ultimately undermined its original cause. Responses to the suggestive statuses have either been self-congratulatory messages from girls at the ingenuity of their skills of innuendo, or retaliatory  and, often, satirical comments from boys. There has been no mention of pledges of support or links to relevant charity websites.    
Within the realms of the internet, it is easy to lose sight of the original positivity of a campaign. Perhaps the campaign in question has done some good in raising awareness amongst women about the dangers of breast cancer. Yet any viral charity campaign needs to be judged on its ability to raise money. In this regard, many internet movements fail and it is mainly for this reason that this most recent cyber-based charitable offering fails at what it should have set out to do. What is worse is that the campaign has reinforced archaic and divisive sexist stereotypes. After all, when it comes down to it, women have ended up publicly sexualising themselves, while men have been forced to the sidelines and left wondering what it’s all about.