I don't quite get the connection between the premise and the conclusion. Sure, influencers get rewarded by social media algorithms for polarising content, but most people are not influencers.

▲

parpfish 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

i found it weird that this person has multiple friends that were able to "make bank" by having polarizing opinions. i know a ton of folks with polarizing opinions and none of them are monetizing it.

what kind of world is this author living in where their social circle includes so many influencers that are cashing in on social media?

	▲	IncreasePosts 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I assume it was the author ratting on themselves and their para social relationships. I'm guessing "friend" here is a person the author follows on Twitter and occasionally exchanges a DM with

▲

JKCalhoun 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And the influenced are rewarded by the influencer that is validating their polarized views.

You also might be putting too fine a point on "influencer". A relative of mine on Facebook might be a kind of "influencer"—at least with regard to his small cadre of family and friends that follow him.

▲

oytis 20 hours ago | parent [-]

You can look at it it this way, but why your small circle of family and friends would reward polarizing opinions? If anything, I have seen people losing real life relationships by not knowing when to stop in online arguments

	▲	JKCalhoun 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's for sure. Sure think a lot less of some members of my family and a coworker or two thanks to SM (can we just call it SM?).

▲

korse 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>most people are not influencers.

Perhaps, but many are. They just don't have much reach or don't use a digital platform.

▲

wnevets 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> but most people are not influencers.

they either get elected or appointment to the government