7 ms·

Apologies if this is too meta, but all the claims of "ugh so glad I don't care about social media" and "what do influencers am I right????" feel really, really

Apologies if this is too meta, but all the claims of "ugh so glad I don't care about social media" and "what do influencers am I right????" feel really, really disingenuous on a forum run by a silicon valley incubator, where discussions of building products that run on advertisements regularly take place. I think there's a deeper truth that most people, including us here on HN, don't want to admit: humans are at not rational, logical beings; rather we are emotional decision makers who largely don't understand our own opinions and preferences, where they come from, or how much "influence" comes from sources outside ourselves. The next time you decide on a particular brand of product, or vote for a particular politician, ask yourself: why do I think this? Why do I have these beliefs about how the world works, about how society should be organized, or about why people should act this way? At this point it's almost a truism to say ads work. How is the "influencer game" different from ads? A trusted source shows a product or service, and some percentage of the followers buy it. A platform has hundreds of millions of users. Some do anything necessary to capture as big a slice of that audience, and monetize it. This may be a revelation for Joe Average who knows nothing of the ad-driven-startup world, but it shouldn't be a surprise to us.

mbesto 8y ago
I agree with everything you're saying but this: > How is the "influencer game" different from ads? Big difference -> ads are specifically marked as advertisements as legally required. The legislation is wildly inconsistent for influencers (#ad etc)
- rigorman 8y ago
  Last decade, legislation settled on requiring bloggers to disclose all sponsored posts.
Swizec 8y ago
Influencers aren’t ads. Influencers are product placement. Oh you thought it was a coincidence that every desk in MI5 has a Curvoiser bottle always pointing at the camera? Or that Black Panther chases a Mercedes not a Maseratti? No such thing as a brand shown by accident.
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  I’m reminded that ET’s iconic candy was Reese’s Pieces instead of M&Ms because Mars said no.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  The funny thing is aggressive copyright law is to blame for it and lawyers forcing "brand x-ing". Without it we might see more "organic" classification intended to reflect the character like the old noir smoking cliches. Sure there would be manipulations still but it wouldn't be approved as a norm and other intrusions like "don't show the fancy sports car getting dented after ramming a gunman at 120 mph".
zebraflask 8y ago
That's all fair enough. I think the root of the complaint is that the influencers that people find objectionable just aren't very good at influencing, however that may be defined. Nobody appreciates blatant, yet poorly executed, attempts at marketing.
Jedi72 8y ago
There is a deeper truth that marketing people (like yourself I am guessing?) don't want to admit: what you do is wrong. To it's very core. You're attempting to take away people's free will, using the dirtiest tactics one could imagine. Emotional manipulation, exploiting peoples insecurities, their need to feel a certain level of status from their peers: these are staple tactics of a marketer, and social media influencers are the most horrid incantation of this dystopian reality. Note that I distinguish marketing from mere ads, which (one hopes) are just trying to impart information. I have no problem with you saying you have skateboard for sale at $50. When you pay a 19yr old model to stand there looking cool with a sultry look on her face, thats not advertising, its manipulation. Sure it works, its even legal, but it's a very evil thing. https://youtu.be/_86qb7hlbJI https://youtu.be/_86qb7hlbJI says it all (only 50 second long and very funny, be sure to check out his other stuff - comedy is usually greatest when its saying something true).
- thatfrenchguy 8y ago
  Free will is highly overstated though: as the parent comment said, everything you think and believe and thus do is linked to a particular social context. That's true for the stuff you buy, the stuff you believe in, the things you think are "wrong" or "right" or "normal" or "abnormal". When you start looking/living in other societies you realise that all of these is just cultural norms.
  - mnky9800n 8y ago
    This is true but it's not cause and effect like OP suggests. If it were then marketing would be a solved problem.
  - atoav 8y ago
    But it makes a difference whether you are part of creating a society within which a entities fortune is based on exploiting (and feeding into) the believes of gullible victims or whether you try to create a society in which you try to bring out the best from within the people. The latter is some sort of humanism, that ultimately resulted in all the things we collectively seem to value about western societies, while the former is more or less responsible for the biggest problems we have. So even if free will turns out a complete illusion, it would still matter how people treat each other based on that idea. Usually you can amend it to: “Free will is an illusion, at least for those poor idiots who have nobody but themselves to blame for it, which is why it is socially acceptable for me to exploit them” (This is not aimed at you, it is just a thought that crossed my mind, when I read your comment)
raxxorrax 8y ago
> humans are at not rational Thank god! I think we got lucky there... I agree with influencers making a difference and we see something analogous to buying clicks here. This will distort perception further. Fringe topics will suddenly seem to be important to lot of (fake) people. This will distort perception heavily.
cf498 8y ago
> feel really, really disingenuous on a forum run by a silicon valley incubator, where discussions of building products that run on advertisements regularly take place. Just because they take place here doesnt mean everyone here is involved in these discussions.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
MikeGale 8y ago
There are different audiences out there and the "metrics" reflect some of them but not others. Simplified version. Type 1: Think that metrics (followers, friends, likes, reposts...) have meaning. Pursue that meaning. Have no effective moral structure. Maybe are dumb. Type 2: Don't care about metrics. Find a way to get something that they actually like out of the systems. Have some moral structure. Much discussion assumes that all users are dominated by their Type 1 side. Type 2's are invisible to the analyst. Me I say. If everybody is genuinely Type 1 it's time to can "Project Mankind" and start again. Fortunately I know that there are Type 2's out there.

mbesto 8y ago

I agree with everything you're saying but this: > How is the "influencer game" different from ads? Big difference -> ads are specifically marked as advertisements as legally required. The legislation is wildly inconsistent for influencers (#ad etc)

rigorman 8y ago
Last decade, legislation settled on requiring bloggers to disclose all sponsored posts.

Swizec 8y ago

Influencers aren’t ads. Influencers are product placement. Oh you thought it was a coincidence that every desk in MI5 has a Curvoiser bottle always pointing at the camera? Or that Black Panther chases a Mercedes not a Maseratti? No such thing as a brand shown by accident.

stochastic_monk 8y ago
I’m reminded that ET’s iconic candy was Reese’s Pieces instead of M&Ms because Mars said no.
Nasrudith 8y ago
The funny thing is aggressive copyright law is to blame for it and lawyers forcing "brand x-ing". Without it we might see more "organic" classification intended to reflect the character like the old noir smoking cliches. Sure there would be manipulations still but it wouldn't be approved as a norm and other intrusions like "don't show the fancy sports car getting dented after ramming a gunman at 120 mph".

zebraflask 8y ago

That's all fair enough. I think the root of the complaint is that the influencers that people find objectionable just aren't very good at influencing, however that may be defined. Nobody appreciates blatant, yet poorly executed, attempts at marketing.

Jedi72 8y ago

There is a deeper truth that marketing people (like yourself I am guessing?) don't want to admit: what you do is wrong. To it's very core. You're attempting to take away people's free will, using the dirtiest tactics one could imagine. Emotional manipulation, exploiting peoples insecurities, their need to feel a certain level of status from their peers: these are staple tactics of a marketer, and social media influencers are the most horrid incantation of this dystopian reality. Note that I distinguish marketing from mere ads, which (one hopes) are just trying to impart information. I have no problem with you saying you have skateboard for sale at $50. When you pay a 19yr old model to stand there looking cool with a sultry look on her face, thats not advertising, its manipulation. Sure it works, its even legal, but it's a very evil thing. https://youtu.be/_86qb7hlbJI https://youtu.be/_86qb7hlbJI says it all (only 50 second long and very funny, be sure to check out his other stuff - comedy is usually greatest when its saying something true).

thatfrenchguy 8y ago
Free will is highly overstated though: as the parent comment said, everything you think and believe and thus do is linked to a particular social context. That's true for the stuff you buy, the stuff you believe in, the things you think are "wrong" or "right" or "normal" or "abnormal". When you start looking/living in other societies you realise that all of these is just cultural norms.
- mnky9800n 8y ago
  This is true but it's not cause and effect like OP suggests. If it were then marketing would be a solved problem.
- atoav 8y ago
  But it makes a difference whether you are part of creating a society within which a entities fortune is based on exploiting (and feeding into) the believes of gullible victims or whether you try to create a society in which you try to bring out the best from within the people. The latter is some sort of humanism, that ultimately resulted in all the things we collectively seem to value about western societies, while the former is more or less responsible for the biggest problems we have. So even if free will turns out a complete illusion, it would still matter how people treat each other based on that idea. Usually you can amend it to: “Free will is an illusion, at least for those poor idiots who have nobody but themselves to blame for it, which is why it is socially acceptable for me to exploit them” (This is not aimed at you, it is just a thought that crossed my mind, when I read your comment)

raxxorrax 8y ago

> humans are at not rational Thank god! I think we got lucky there... I agree with influencers making a difference and we see something analogous to buying clicks here. This will distort perception further. Fringe topics will suddenly seem to be important to lot of (fake) people. This will distort perception heavily.

cf498 8y ago

> feel really, really disingenuous on a forum run by a silicon valley incubator, where discussions of building products that run on advertisements regularly take place. Just because they take place here doesnt mean everyone here is involved in these discussions.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

MikeGale 8y ago

There are different audiences out there and the "metrics" reflect some of them but not others. Simplified version. Type 1: Think that metrics (followers, friends, likes, reposts...) have meaning. Pursue that meaning. Have no effective moral structure. Maybe are dumb. Type 2: Don't care about metrics. Find a way to get something that they actually like out of the systems. Have some moral structure. Much discussion assumes that all users are dominated by their Type 1 side. Type 2's are invisible to the analyst. Me I say. If everybody is genuinely Type 1 it's time to can "Project Mankind" and start again. Fortunately I know that there are Type 2's out there.