Eight of the top 10 online shows are spreading climate misinformation | Often backed by large advertising budgets, a new breed of climate denial is gaining popularity.
Eight of the top 10 online shows are spreading climate misinformation | Often backed by large advertising budgets, a new breed of climate denial is gaining popularity.
Often backed by large advertising budgets, a new breed of climate denial is gaining popularity.
You're viewing a single thread.
I wonder how many people out there are like me and don't follow influencers at all. If anything, I consider influencers a net negative on society.
The concept of an influencer should, ideally, be made illegal. I'm convinced the primary reason they are popular, is people are too lazy to want to have to read news/information of whatever topic and assemble it into something resembling their own opinion. They'd much rather have some other person read, parse, watch the goings-on and then deliver it as the influencer's opinion. That way, people can subscribe to people that have similar opinions as themselves, and not be spooked by information that is "scary" or challenges their worldview.
It is like influencer was the next progression after social media echo chambers came into existence. A role inserted between old/traditional methods of information delivery, that parses it and delivers it in a format appealing to a particular audience. A role that has never had any certification or vetting process. Just some dude with a microphone in his mom's bathroom.
So many people (in America at least) legitimately want to get into this as a "career" too, which is disturbing. Rather than doing real work of any kind to benefit society. If everyone is an influencer, who's maintaining the codebase that makes their streams possible? Designing the hardware the software runs on? The power plants that run the datacenters? etc.
That being said, traditional media definitely hasn't adapted well to the changing methods of information delivery, so maybe this is our 21st century media transition happening organically, and standards will eventually follow, hopefully.
"Fuck journalists and artists. We should just give all of their power to corporate media and record labels."
" I’m convinced the primary reason they are popular, is people are too lazy to want to have to read news/information of whatever topic and assemble it into something resembling their own opinion. They’d much rather have some other person read, parse, watch the goings-on and then deliver it as the influencer’s opinion."
You've essentially described why idiots like Joe Rogan are so powerful
Its unfortunate if you dont support good journalists.
Most corporate media is crap. Its important to follow and support the work of good journalists.
Journalists and influencers are two very different things, friend. Any jackass with a YouTube channel or Instagram account can be an influencer. Journalism requires education, investigative and literary skill, and vetting.
No, journalists are influencers. You can make a distinction between types and quality of influencers (people with platforms and followers who they influence with the content they publish), but dont condemn all influencers.
No, journalists are not influencers. Influencers are just advertisers in human form. They'll do and say anything if it pays them money. They share more in common with prostitutes than they do journalists.
Journalists are influencers.
We've had influencers for thousands of years. Jesus Christ was an influencer.
Journalists are truth tellers. Influencers are false-tellers. Yellow journalism is written by influencers, not journalists. See the distinction?
I'm learning a new language right now and I find myself reflecting more and more about the strengths and weaknesses of English.
English is really good at a lot of things including humour and poetry. But it transforms overtime depending on region, culture, demographics, economics, marketing, and politics... which makes miscommunication happen ALL THE TIME.
I say this because you're both right, and it's frustrating because it limits our ability to have a meaningful conversation.
If you want to look at a fun language that relies far more heavily on context than English, search for Toki Pona. It's a neat "toy" language!
Perhaps this is an argument over semantics, rather than anything substantive.
When I say "influencer," I'm referring to a class of people whose lives revolve around producing performative content on social media that does not meaningfully add to society.
Journalists are influencers.
We've had influencers for thousands of years. Jesus Christ was an influencer.
We're using the word "influencer" differently here. You're using it the literal way - "one who influences." The version I'm using is narrower in scope.
But if you insist on using your terminology, then I'll refer to them not as "influencers" but rather "social media attention whores." Does that make you feel better?
Sure. Or you can say "bad influencers" or "the influencers who spread misinformation"
There are also influencers who care only about themselves, like those who like to stomp around in other people's gardens without permission in order to get a "good photo" for their followers.
OK, so "asshole influencers"
But I dont understand how that would influence anyone.
I do not idolize a single person. I find that when folks follow someone endlessly for years, they become incapable of recognizing the flaws and issues with anything they say. They’ve allowed themselves to be compromised and their judgment clouded by obsessing over a figure.
I wonder how many people out there are like me and don't follow influencers at all.
Yo.