"Social Influencers"

heighway2heaven wrote: I went down a rabbit hole of looking in to this sh*te last night. My god, humanity is at its lowest ebb. 'Vacuous' and 'vapid' are the two words that kept springing to mind. Tie it all in with that Logan Paul dickhead from the other week and I can safely say I'm done with 'civilisation'.

MC Hammered wrote: I suppose this sh1te has always existed in some form (restaurant reviewers, "celebs" opening shopping centres etc) but social media has made it an accessible to every halfwit in possession of a smart phone.  The more I think about it, the more unsure I am that the internet has been a positive for humanity.

heighway2heaven wrote: I went down a rabbit hole of looking in to this sh*te last night. My god, humanity is at its lowest ebb. 'Vacuous' and 'vapid' are the two words that kept springing to mind. Tie it all in with that Logan Paul dickhead from the other week and I can safely say I'm done with 'civilisation'.

Is there any difference between this and product placement on TV (with the exception of the little P in the top corner of the screen) ? 

Het-field wrote: The problem is that any industry which does not have some form of standards or regulation allows for spoofers and clowns to get involved. Terms like 'consultant' can range from a Doctor progressing in their career to a spoofed who claims to be versed in a sector and essentially qualified to give advice. Social influencers are certainly not as bad as the people who self style as lawyers with no qualifications and get involved in other people's legal affairs, but there are plenty of spoofers in the industry.

Freemen on the land are the worst. Ignore them, completely. They are charlatans.

I'd love to know how they get so many followers? Presumably at the very start they have nobody following them or only close friends and family. Before they get a critical mass of followers which can then lead to other people jumping on the bandwagon to follow them, how do they get people to decide that they are worth following? I mean what makes a person decide, "I'll follow this random stranger on the internet who I have never heard of so I can hear their opinions on restaurants, fashion, sports, whatever"?

There's a large amount of bots (or fake accounts) that pick up on key words they use and give automatic likes and follows, there is real people as well of course but it's not the true figure. 

the_walls wrote: I'd love to know how they get so many followers? Presumably at the very start they have nobody following them or only close friends and family. Before they get a critical mass of followers which can then lead to other people jumping on the bandwagon to follow them, how do they get people to decide that they are worth following? I mean what makes a person decide, "I'll follow this random stranger on the internet who I have never heard of so I can hear their opinions on restaurants, fashion, sports, whatever"?

FREEWHEELER wrote: heighway2heaven wrote: I went down a rabbit hole of looking in to this sh*te last night. My god, humanity is at its lowest ebb. 'Vacuous' and 'vapid' are the two words that kept springing to mind. Tie it all in with that Logan Paul dickhead from the other week and I can safely say I'm done with 'civilisation'.   I heard wan of them briefly on the RTE radio news and I literally ran to the radio to switch it off when she said she'd Snapchatted when she was in labour.   A lot of people with sad lives supporting/subscribing/following these absolute sh*t for brains people.