Interesting look into what Zuck and other mega celebrities experience day to day. I'm sure Zuck and others of a certain stature have many protection layers, but surely some things slip through and it's interesting to consider those just a tier lower that can't afford all of the security, etc.
Reminds me of the Bill Murray quote: "I always want to say to people who want to be rich and famous: 'try being rich first'. See if that doesn't cover most of it."
It's something to remember when considering the reactions and attitudes of extremely high profile people. If you've ever felt bad because of a shitty comment posted by someone you don't know, you have just a fraction of what some people have to endure. Even when you know the comments are unreasonable and 'haters gonna hate' there's still some damage done.
High profile figures may appear distant, callous, or even fully radicalised by that onslaught. While you shouldn't have to blindly accept poor behaviour from people just because of their fame, I think you should still try to have compassion for their situation. If you think in terms of a bad person compared to bad behaviour we risk normalising a response to that behaviour that creates a feedback loop that exacerbates the problem.
Part of me wonders if there is nothing to be done. Perhaps the worst of people will still create enough poor feedback for someone famous enough. Will the majority being more compassionate mitigate the problem, I'd like to think so.
At times I'm mused that man is perhaps calibrated to live in tribes of 100. If you're known to ten million, however, you can get the 100,000x the correct dosage for whatever attention your actions draw.
Hard to fix, -- since even if people were considerate enough to make a tenfold reduction you'd still be overdosed by 10,000x.
I wonder if the emergence of "virtual celebrities" like VTubers has anything to do with that. Seems like the best of both worlds: You get the loyal fanbase and positive energy of a celebrity, but can also simply "log out" of that identity if it would negatively impact your "real" life.
Depends. If you are a really recognisable persona and you just log out one day, then expect a bunch of psycho-fan creeps looking for you in the real world.
Yeah, they'll probably always be a small number of creeps who try to doxx you, unfortunately. But I think it's still the difference between "a small number" and "everyone who has seen you on screen at some point".
An identity that is obviously constructed (like VTubers) at least signals to the audience that the real person behind the character would like to stay anonymous. I think the majority of fans would respect that wish.
Whereas celebrities who make their real-life identity into a brand - even if that brand is an obvious fiction as well - signal the opposite to their audience.
Yes. Outside of the sheer security, people telling rich people they're fake will just warrant a cute condescending laugh and they go on with their life, while the guy here is basically denied his identity.
Related phenomenon: So-called "Lolcows". Over here in Germany, we have the infamous case of "Drachenlord", a Youtuber that had a lot of negative interactions with his "fanbase" to the point that one could argue he was dependent on being harassed.
Also interesting how the definition of "famous" has changed due to that: We now have thousands of "micro-celebrities" who undoubtedly have a fan/celebrity relationship with their specific audience, yet are completely unknown to a wider audience. So even fame is now a relative term.
>Many of the truly rich people are quite anonymous
Are you trying to tell me that there are people out there worth more than Elon Musk who are not throwing money at political campaigns, funding mass projects or cultural pursuits? Because, yes, its possible for someone who is worth say, half a billion or even up to maybe 10 billion dollars or so to stay out of public life, but at a certain degree of wealth that wealth becomes institutional and closely tied to political power, so it becomes functionally impossible to remain fully anonymous. What state, what government would allow a private citizen worth so much money to go untaxed, without that person somehow being tied to the government? Or are you saying that the state, which commands use of force and violence, would not use that force to extract wealth from those who are not apart, directly, of its apparatus?
We would need to define "famous", because just because someone has a steady cam doesn't mean they're famous :P I would think the amount of "famous" "influencers" making that much is a much higher percentage.
Outside of that Twitch leak some years ago, is there any reliable data on how much content creators make?
I used to be a full-time YouTuber, and I was very successful. For my channels, the revenue estimates on Socialblade were accurate. Reality for me tended toward their high estimate.
It definitely is. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drachenlord
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an English version of the article. Maybe auto translate will get the gist across.
Small relative to the number of total influencers maybe, but I'm not sure it's a small number in absolute terms. There are an estimated 12 million full time influencers in the US, and approximately 1% of them have 100k+ followers. That means 120k people likely are making 6 figures at a minimum. Influencers with smaller audiences can still make significant income depending on engagement, sponsorship, demographic, hours worked, and platforms they are operating on.
Considering that you can be a youtuber from anywhere, making a few hundred grand annually would make you actually quite wealthy. It's not the same thing as working for a big tech company but being required to live in a very high cost of living area.
This is why people like my wife exist. They solely are the “human in the loop” on reservations making sure a human on the other side knows it’s legit. It’s a fascinating field.
The website security model breaks down when people constantly try to enter your password.
The currently model assumes good behavior by most people most of the time in order for basic web services to function. Seems like an obvious vulnerability to malicious activity.
Like for example how Facebook search results and graph search seem to encompass an ever enlargening circle of Friends Of Friends (and if not just reset the privacy settings to public anyway)
Reminds me of the Bill Murray quote: "I always want to say to people who want to be rich and famous: 'try being rich first'. See if that doesn't cover most of it."