5 ms·
Correct. However, the illusion of engagement can be powerful. e.g. Obama and Clinton campaigns were able to use dinner w/ candidate or famous supporters as a
by erehweb 11y ago
Correct. However, the illusion of engagement can be powerful. e.g. Obama and Clinton campaigns were able to use dinner w/ candidate or famous supporters as a fund-raising lottery tool. Would people engage more with Twitter if they knew there was a small but real chance of getting a non-canned response from celebs?
- Domenic_S 11y agoExactly. Winning the lotto is essentially impossible as well, but millions still play because there's a (ever so small) non-zero chance they'll hit. This would basically be celeb lotto.
- rhino369 11y agoBut isn't that how Twitter works. There is a small chance the celebrity will tweet back at you.
- rmxt 11y agoCorrection: There is a small chance that the celebrity/politician's publicity agent will tweet back at you. There is an even smaller chance the celebrity will tweet back at you. I think that this is part of the reason why it's really the "illusion of engagement" and not real engagement. The elite will perpetually be separated from the masses... the specific medium may change, but the separation will persist.
- jerf 11y agoBut I think it's again worth highlighting that this "separation" isn't because they're in their ivory towers, but sheer simple math. Nobody can "engage" with millions of people. It's part of why Internet flash mobs destroying people's lives is something we need to figure out how to get a handle on culturally, and start stigmatizing, because nobody can "engage" with a mob to defend themselves. It's why even if you're only "Internet famous" and you're running a blog with thousands of readers, you can't afford to spend even a second a day on each of your readers. It's not really an "elite" problem.