Conversation

the renewed discourse around 'working in public' has clarified something for me... the difference between being a public figure vs. merely working/talking in public (even with a huge audience) comes down to being willing to signal *consequential* alliances and enmities in public
1
83
Both you and the counterparty have to matter, and it should be of consequence to others that you're working with/against each other.
2
13
Also, you should matter individually in a context-free way. A whistleblower, for example, is not a public figure exactly. They're creatures of context. Nobody cares who they are, only what they did on one issue. Assange is a public figure, Snowden is only a quasi-public figure.
1
11
To be a true public figure, two conditions have to hold. 1. Your declaration of allyship should be capable of disrupting courses of events 2. Your declarations of enmity should, at least in some cases, lead to fights you can finish, not just start.
1
26
This is why I'm not a public figure, though I have significant reach. Any allyship from me can at best amplify momentum in an existing direction a bit, not materially change the course of significant events. And on enmity... I can't finish any significant fight I can start
1
18
Beating up on small-account randos is of course still an option, but that's basically working at being cringe in public
3
13