2/ Social media itself isn't that. Yes, anyone with some combination of time, cleverness, and, often, a lack of morality can grow their reach in the sense of cultivating a following of people who listen to them — but that's mostly computer-mediated homophily, not influence.
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/ Specifically, I'm referring to the ability to induce (preferably durable) changes in beliefs and not ephemeral opinions. (Although, manipulating complexes of the latter often has that effect by forging Chinese finger trap like cognitive artifacts.)
Show this thread -
4/ I'm a relatively sophisticated user of social media. And, I'm certainly someone who wants to *influence* people. But, I honestly have no idea if I do so. And, I suspect I don't. Again, I think I just help reinforce via homophily.
Show this thread -
5/ So back to the democratization of influence idea, imagine I offered you tools that measure how well you changed hearts and minds. (And ignore how measurement is). What happens?
Show this thread -
6/ My hot take would be you'd have a k-level intentionality problem. "I think you think that I think that I think," regressing to the point where complexity explodes and things get too hard *at scale*.
Show this thread -
7/ But... ...could that where influence gets democratized?
Show this thread -
8/ Obviously there are a lot of obvious and strong counter-arguments to this, but this premise has been stuck in my head for a while now.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 3 more replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.