He was writing about how stories of social injustice get a ton of upvotes, but nobody actually goes out and does anything to fix the situation. I'm sure there's a lesson here for HN.
I can, however, give the slightest nod of support to promote countless causes that I may appreciate, but not be able to do anything about. Or I could smugly tell people how smug they are (believe me, I do that, too!).
Edit: Not that I don't agree there are far too many cause-whores out there who have stickers and shirts and web-buttons for a bunch of trendy causes that don't contribute toward anything in the world and that there aren't a ton of people who feel they directly had a part in the recent middle east uprisings, just because they followed activists in the thick of it, via Twitter.
"I defend the value of "not caring about 90% of stuff" Care deeply about everything == accomplish nothing." - John Carmack
One of the negative consequences of social media in general is that it can lead to very casual and even cynical views of how we relate to one another. Thus, what was meant to bring people together can actually make them more emotionally distant. If I see a hundred stories of trouble in the world, why would I take action on even one of those troubles?
When you upvote a story on reddit about some issue you deeply care about, that tricks your brain into thinking that you have done something about it.
It is the same problem that announcing your goals makes you less likely to achieve them, because you already see yourself as a person who has accomplished that.
"All those biases that lead people to give time and money and thought to causes that don't really merit them waste not only time and money, but an exhaustible supply of moral fiber"
It's the "Swedish model" -- there private charity is rare, but public welfare and development aid is generally accepted and supported by voters.
Basic strategy "always defect until everyone agrees not to while voting that everyone not defect."