3 ms·
I don't quite get the connection between the premise and the conclusion. Sure, influencers get rewarded by social media algorithms for polarising content, but m
by oytis 11mo ago
I don't quite get the connection between the premise and the conclusion. Sure, influencers get rewarded by social media algorithms for polarising content, but most people are not influencers.
- wnevets 11mo ago> but most people are not influencers. they either get elected or appointment to the government
- korse 11mo ago>most people are not influencers. Perhaps, but many are. They just don't have much reach or don't use a digital platform.
- JKCalhoun 11mo agoAnd the influenced are rewarded by the influencer that is validating their polarized views. You also might be putting too fine a point on "influencer". A relative of mine on Facebook might be a kind of "influencer"—at least with regard to his small cadre of family and friends that follow him.
- oytis 11mo agoYou can look at it it this way, but why your small circle of family and friends would reward polarizing opinions? If anything, I have seen people losing real life relationships by not knowing when to stop in online arguments
- JKCalhoun 11mo agoThat's for sure. Sure think a lot less of some members of my family and a coworker or two thanks to SM (can we just call it SM?).
- parpfish 11mo agoi found it weird that this person has multiple friends that were able to "make bank" by having polarizing opinions. i know a ton of folks with polarizing opinions and none of them are monetizing it. what kind of world is this author living in where their social circle includes so many influencers that are cashing in on social media?
- IncreasePosts 11mo agoI assume it was the author ratting on themselves and their para social relationships. I'm guessing "friend" here is a person the author follows on Twitter and occasionally exchanges a DM with