Influencer is just an entertainer, the platforms change, the purpose is the same, whether it is standup comedy, magician, theater/ movie actors, dancers, pop mu

Influencer is just an entertainer, the platforms change, the purpose is the same, whether it is standup comedy, magician, theater/ movie actors, dancers, pop music artist or talk show hosts. They are all performing for y(our) entertainment. I imagine some people found slapstick comedians from silent movie era to be poor form of expression compared to drama or comedy plays, live performances to recorded music or very recently Megan thee stallion's performance or whatever. Every type of performance art has its own value and target audience, one form is not superior to another. [2] In the context of the article's premise that last point is important. Indian art is filled with great content, however dominantly portrayed both within and externally are the traditionally upper caste forms (Carnatic music/Bhartanatyam etc) in public discourse. Historically it is projected to be superior/ culturally better etc. There is lot of folk and regional traditions which have not had the same patronage, while things are changing over the years more artists and art from such forms are getting better recognition non classical instruments get more limelight, the history of that is deeply linked to Indian caste system and social struggles. The author's premise[1] is that TikTok was a better medium than Instagram for that expression and that is now lost. He indirectly is saying Modi's government ( an upper caste right wing nationalist government) was not just banning a Chinese app but an important avenue of expression for marginalized communities. [1] I don't follow either platform to have an opinion on whether this is true. [2] The discussion on whether any art is valuable or useful is different kind of discussion I am not getting into, the premise here is if some art is valuable , just because we don't like some other form shouldn't make it less valuable