Brilliant reporting, and I suspect the FP staff is just getting started on this. One idea I'd love to see reporting on is the (un)intended consequence of VF as it pertains to monetization of user visibility.
If Twitter was actively and intentionally filtering content causing such content to gain more relevance than it otherwise would, do…
Brilliant reporting, and I suspect the FP staff is just getting started on this. One idea I'd love to see reporting on is the (un)intended consequence of VF as it pertains to monetization of user visibility.
If Twitter was actively and intentionally filtering content causing such content to gain more relevance than it otherwise would, does it not also stand to reason that it artificially caused users to share such content AND opinions? In a growing online world of (non-celebrity) influencers and actual celebrities, their voices grew louder as their tweets gained attention. They gained followers and as such gained wealth through marketing relationships justified by "person x has y million followers". It seemed obvious to me that "having an opinion," so long as it supported the acceptable narrative, became valuable to an industry that for as long as history shows typically tried to stay "off the radar" socially/politically.
So with those (undisputed) facts as a foundation, is it not reasonable to think that influencer/celebrity opinions and therefore content were directly and artificially generated by what they believed would "trend" and therefore lead them to more followers and money? The very word "influencer" seems to imply we know the answer to this question, but I'd love to read some reporting on the behind the scenes attempts to create a "culture of influencers" as opposed to a "culture of informers" or a "culture of leaders".
Brilliant reporting, and I suspect the FP staff is just getting started on this. One idea I'd love to see reporting on is the (un)intended consequence of VF as it pertains to monetization of user visibility.
If Twitter was actively and intentionally filtering content causing such content to gain more relevance than it otherwise would, does it not also stand to reason that it artificially caused users to share such content AND opinions? In a growing online world of (non-celebrity) influencers and actual celebrities, their voices grew louder as their tweets gained attention. They gained followers and as such gained wealth through marketing relationships justified by "person x has y million followers". It seemed obvious to me that "having an opinion," so long as it supported the acceptable narrative, became valuable to an industry that for as long as history shows typically tried to stay "off the radar" socially/politically.
So with those (undisputed) facts as a foundation, is it not reasonable to think that influencer/celebrity opinions and therefore content were directly and artificially generated by what they believed would "trend" and therefore lead them to more followers and money? The very word "influencer" seems to imply we know the answer to this question, but I'd love to read some reporting on the behind the scenes attempts to create a "culture of influencers" as opposed to a "culture of informers" or a "culture of leaders".