3 ms·

This reminds me of Lorenzeo Von Matterhorn: http://www.lorenzovonmatterhorn.com/ http://www.lorenzovonmatterhorn.com/ The premise of the article is thought-pro

by mbesto 14y ago

This reminds me of Lorenzeo Von Matterhorn: http://www.lorenzovonmatterhorn.com/ http://www.lorenzovonmatterhorn.com/ The premise of the article is thought-provoking, but slightly invalid. A few things: - Like all fakes, they eventually get caught. - Maintaining fame is a lifelong journey. - As places like twitter get more and more saturated the less likely "10,000+" followers will matter. - You only have one thing in this world, your reputation. If you screw it up by buying fake followers, you have 10 times more of the work you require to naturally build reputation in order to climb out of the hole you've put yourself in. What would be REALLY interesting is to see what kind of money Santiago Swallow generated from his "internet fame".

coldtea 14y ago
>Like all fakes, they eventually get caught. From a logically consistent point of view, how can you even prove that? Nobody except those "in the game" would be able to know about fakes that didn't get caught ever. So it's a bias fallacy: you only ever get to hear about fakes that GET caught. Second, even if we are to believe that all "eventually get caught" what does it matter? If the "eventually" is 2-10 years, that's enough time to do a lot of damage, fool people, etc. It's as if saying "Crime is no biggie, because eventually all criminals get dead". >- Maintaining fame is a lifelong journey. If you want to maintain it for a lifetime, yes. If you only want some time in the spotlight, no. Why would a troll or con-artist care to maintain "lifelong fame"? He wants to get something out of the fake identity, it's not like it's his real life. >- You only have one thing in this world, your reputation. If you screw it up by buying fake followers, you have 10 times more of the work you require to naturally build reputation in order to climb out of the hole you've put yourself in. Doesn't matter for people that bought the fake followers and didn't get caught. Or whatever similar fake-generation system they used in another medium.
- mbesto 14y ago
  >how can you even prove that? Fair point, but I suspect the only way this discussion ends in an philosophical debate about perception vs reality. My overall point is what is end-goal objective for someone who would implement such a technique? To make money? The author is suggesting that it's easier and cheaper building your personal brand (and thus reap benefits) than to work hard organically. Furthermore that we should be concerned that it is possible. My perspective is "So what? These people are running very risky lives and will get caught. Even if they don't, they still live carrying a massive burden of risk". Social network have equally positive and negative powers associated with them.

by mbesto 14y ago

coldtea 14y ago

>Like all fakes, they eventually get caught. From a logically consistent point of view, how can you even prove that? Nobody except those "in the game" would be able to know about fakes that didn't get caught ever. So it's a bias fallacy: you only ever get to hear about fakes that GET caught. Second, even if we are to believe that all "eventually get caught" what does it matter? If the "eventually" is 2-10 years, that's enough time to do a lot of damage, fool people, etc. It's as if saying "Crime is no biggie, because eventually all criminals get dead". >- Maintaining fame is a lifelong journey. If you want to maintain it for a lifetime, yes. If you only want some time in the spotlight, no. Why would a troll or con-artist care to maintain "lifelong fame"? He wants to get something out of the fake identity, it's not like it's his real life. >- You only have one thing in this world, your reputation. If you screw it up by buying fake followers, you have 10 times more of the work you require to naturally build reputation in order to climb out of the hole you've put yourself in. Doesn't matter for people that bought the fake followers and didn't get caught. Or whatever similar fake-generation system they used in another medium.

mbesto 14y ago
>how can you even prove that? Fair point, but I suspect the only way this discussion ends in an philosophical debate about perception vs reality. My overall point is what is end-goal objective for someone who would implement such a technique? To make money? The author is suggesting that it's easier and cheaper building your personal brand (and thus reap benefits) than to work hard organically. Furthermore that we should be concerned that it is possible. My perspective is "So what? These people are running very risky lives and will get caught. Even if they don't, they still live carrying a massive burden of risk". Social network have equally positive and negative powers associated with them.