Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
Technically yes, but also no. We’re talking about two different thresholds.
I wouldn’t call a history teacher an influencer just because they influence people. The definition is much narrower. Their influence must be online and at scale. If someone consistently posts content online and has an audience in at least the thousands, they’re an influencer, regardless of whether they’re obviously selling a product.
The influence itself is the commodity. Advertising is only one way to monetize it. We’ve seen adversarial governments spend billions under the table paying popular Instagram and TikTok personalities to shape public opinion, and governments around the world are fighting over control of these platforms precisely because people with large online audiences can influence beliefs and behavior at scale. That’s what makes them influencers. It isn’t my definition, it’s what the term commonly refers to. Thinking someone has to be in your face marketing to you to be an influencer only serves to make influencers more effective at shaping public opinion.
I’m just saying your argument is that anyone who could influence is an “influencer”.
I’m not saying you are wrong but that we definitely have different definitions.
I mean you could even extend that to saying a history teacher is an influencer.
I think that definition is too loose but I acknowledge that there is no specific defined cultural definition so it’s up for personal interpretation.
Technically yes, but also no. We’re talking about two different thresholds.
I wouldn’t call a history teacher an influencer just because they influence people. The definition is much narrower. Their influence must be online and at scale. If someone consistently posts content online and has an audience in at least the thousands, they’re an influencer, regardless of whether they’re obviously selling a product.
The influence itself is the commodity. Advertising is only one way to monetize it. We’ve seen adversarial governments spend billions under the table paying popular Instagram and TikTok personalities to shape public opinion, and governments around the world are fighting over control of these platforms precisely because people with large online audiences can influence beliefs and behavior at scale. That’s what makes them influencers. It isn’t my definition, it’s what the term commonly refers to. Thinking someone has to be in your face marketing to you to be an influencer only serves to make influencers more effective at shaping public opinion.