What I don't understand about the whole "influencer" thing is, why would somebody look up to some unknown person on the internet to figure out life? Maybe I am too old school, kind of old also, but my influencer was my father and uncle. No desire to "learn" something from someone I have never met making money on "likes" on the internet.
Do not need to understand. It is real with real ability to build brands, sway opinions and make lots of money for a few in the same way a small percent of actors/musicians/athletes earn millions of dollars a year.
You can personally ignore social media and dislike its impact but you can’t wish it away from shaping how things you care about are impacted by social media.
Everytime you see a child or adult staring into a rectangle for an extended period of time then you are seeing opinions shaped.
If you have deep pockets while passionate about a topic then you can jumpstart an influencer by “investing” in their launch (see Peter Thiel’s launch of JD Vance toward the Presidency) or “sway” an existing, prominent influencer to bless your product or initiative ($5,000 to get a mention by a person with 100,000 followers of which is about 1 in 33 of remaining, active social media accounts which are trying to grow into mega-influencers though a lot of survivor bias at play so presumably less than 1% of people hoping to be significant social media influencers get to where can earn over $100,000 a year from social media revenues).
An aspiring influencer used to be able to buy “likes” and “followers” to launch into relevance so a lot of influencers would briefly become relevant but the free meals and hotel stays evaporated as a person (or brand) must be interesting and do interesting things on a regular, recurring basis to organically stay relevant. Being attractive in appearance or elite at a skill people care about is helpful. And, navigate minefields that litter the playing field.
There is a growing number of civil wars underway within social media which began in earnest when Senator Obama was first attempting to become President. Is more difficult today to try and be neutral on any subject. You are hounded to pick a side on subjects big and small. The internet is forever and a harsh mistress.
Influencers can lose significant numbers of followers as try to navigate the civil wars that span politics, religions, social policies, sports, armed conflicts, real and perceived injustices, environmental causes, financial inequities, current events and random outrages.
Examples span pro/anti-Palestine vs. pro/anti-Israel, Iran vs. USA, Russia vs. Ukraine, USA ICE vs people, tariffs, Prayer in public schools, pronouns, gun ownership, trophy hunting, meal choices, adultry acceptance, LEO support other than on January 6, etc.
My opinion is as Fish and Game Departments have lit a fuse to a powder keg as they gleefully seek to maximize revenues as raise the non-resident cost to apply for big game tags and raise tag costs.
A virtual moat is being expanded which pushes away potential participants so we that currently participate are aging out and time will thin our “herd” to be a decreasing percentage of registered voters. Will be easier to chip away at hunting trapping and fishing.
Social media influence will be an effective factor as attempts are made to have millions of people not aware of the North American Conservation model confidentially accept that a poacher is a valid example of all hunters and mass shooters are a valid example of all gun-owners.
Hunters are a fragmented segment not prone to opening their checkbook to support focused pro-hunting efforts to shape opinions of active and future voters. Hunters are an easy target, though, and a single moment such as the Cecil the Lion outrage raises millions of dollars in donations from your neighbors and extended family while creating an echo chamber to shape the hearts and minds of young people to presume there is no ethical hunting.