These blog posts (like mine), will never garner “millions of views”. Each one of them is layered with nuances and sub-text, and my contemporary understanding of the issue (or when someone says things better than me – I link it here).
This is an interesting post here; I am adding the key giveaway:
Of course the attention economy is threatened by the Fediverse – Jon Udell
If you occupy a privileged position in the attention economy, as Megan McArdle does now, and as I once did in a more limited way, then no, you won’t see Mastodon as a viable replacement for Twitter. If I were still a quasi-famous columnist I probably wouldn’t either. But I’m no longer employed in the attention economy. I just want to hang out online with people whose words and pictures and ideas intrigue and inspire and delight me, and who might feel similarly about my words and pictures and ideas. There are thousands of such people in the world, not millions. We want to congregate in different online spaces for different reasons. Now we can and I couldn’t be happier. When people say it can’t work, consider why, and who benefits from it not working.
There is no direct correlation between millions of followers or likes to the influence (or even your thought process). Politicians (and journalists) fall in the trap (making for an incestuous relationship for limelight). I usually refrain from these mainstream comments, but it merits a thought at the unproductive pursuit for internet points. It is much like the crypto-there is no money’s worth of money and is backed by meaningless numbers. Those numbers hold some “value” because a group of people place their “trust” in those numbers.
Social media validation won’t lead you anywhere. It maybe in a cultural context, but learn to work with automation and maintain your presence without actually indulging in it.
RadOncNotes 