Influencers: How Democracy Created a Monster

Grab Helen’s doodle tee or one of our other BRAND NEW merch designs ► wscrk.com/3ig48J2
Famous people have existed for millennia. Like, ancient Rome had Julius Caesar. But today we have... Jake Paul. How did the "influencer" as we know it come to be, and what do these TikTok-ing famous folks say about our society? Let's find out in this Wisecrack Edition on Influencers: How Democracy Created a Monster.
Subscribe to Wisecrack! ► wscrk.com/SbscrbWC
Support us on Patreon! ► wscrk.com/32Q7huu
OK Boomer: A History of Boomer Hating ► • OK BOOMER: A History o...
The Myth of Genius ► wscrk.com/2OWedho
=== Watch More Episodes! ===
ARCHER: How TV Ruins You ► wscrk.com/36nOSaf
How BLUMHOUSE Cracked Horror ► wscrk.com/3mMnUyx
Avatar: The Last Airbender: What Went Wrong? ► wscrk.com/2REZ8Cb
Is Hamilton Bad? ► wscrk.com/33HkjJm
DARK: Can You Control Your Future? ► wscrk.com/3ke6Hw1
Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure: Is It Deep or Dumb? ► wscrk.com/3igry16
Store ........... wisecrack.store/
Twitter ......... / wisecrack
Facebook .... / wisecrackedu
Written by: Amanda Scherker
Hosted by: Helen Floersh
Directed by: Michael Luxemburg
Video Title Card Design: Amanda Murphy
Motion Graphics by: Riley A
Editing by: Andrew Nishimura
Produced by: Evan Yee
#influencers #charlidamelio #tanamongeau
© 2020 Wisecrack / Omnia Media, Inc.

[@ZetaMoolah]

“Influencers” are just a bridge for corporations to the youth.

[@MissNayNay]

Yep. And when I first heard the name "influencers" on NPR years and years ago, I had to laugh. How stupid.

[@deleted01]

It won't be just the youth in 10 years.. Just look at how many politicians are on Twitter

[@ahlishaholloway233]

EXACTLY! I've actually started calling them "sentient ads", because ultimately they're job is to live an entirely commodified life.

[@-haclong2366]

The term "Influencer" was also thought of by corporations, before that their fans used to call them "e-celebrities" or "online celebrities", but corporations want to create a wall between the two terms to artificially inflate the value of Hollywood celebrities and other "offline celebrities".

[@ahlishaholloway233]

@@-haclong2366 The term influencer actually originates from a Chicago marketing firm, KBA Marketing

[@tannerholechek5873]

Alexander the great after naming 50 cites after himself and one after his horse.. "I, too, am extremely humble."

[@RealOrbit-Australia]

Which one is after the horse?

[@RealOrbit-Australia]

@Basse thought it was Timbuktu mate

[@bubblegumbitch2191]

Just thought of that horrible history’s sketch

[@romanski5811]

*"I, too, ..."

[@tannerholechek5873]

@@romanski5811 that is correct

[@Tempus0ptic]

Democracy may give you the gift of freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean everyone cares about what you have to say.

[@Chas-OTE]

It also doesn't give you the freedom to be an insufferable asshole... there are far too many people who forget that...

[@wolfb1396]

The freedom of speech gives you the option to speak it does not always mean that you should

[@Miranox2]

@@Chas-OTE It actually does give you that freedom. In the US, for example, the ONLY legal restriction on speech is for incitement to breaking the law.

[@danyosuna7276]

I know that freedom of speech is universal is America, however in México we have a law against "discursos de odio" or "hate speech". It states that if someone incites hate (as violence or discrimination) towards a particular person or a group in any media is a crime. For example earlier this year there was a "singer" who wrote songs about raping and killing women and even had some songs referring to some women celebrities as well and was taking down and may face jail. I think you guys need that in the USA as well

[@Miranox2]

@@danyosuna7276 Incitement to violence is already a crime in the US. Like I said, inciting any illegal behavior is not allowed.

[@QuestionEverythingButWHY]

“Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, absolute power attracts the corruptible.” ― Frank Herbert

[@EricGraham94]

If absolute can corrupt absolutely, contrarily, then that means absolute POWERLESSNESS corrupts absolutely. We've been seeing that more and more in Portland, Seattle, NY and Louisville.

[@jalapenoofjustice4682]

I don't remember who said it, but I agree with the notion that power doesn't corrupt so much as it reveals. If someone has the power to do anything they want, then you know what that person truly wants to do.

[@SupermanBlack1987]

@@EricGraham94 what do you mean please clarify.

[@temesgengebreyesus6104]

determinator 94 very well said

[@malikshakur1306]

@@EricGraham94 I live in nyc you're talking out of your ass man. these cities are dealing with local problems you don't understand if you don't live there. what a fucking rube take

[@jacksont5297]

Alexander the Great, the first clout demon.

[@hydrocityharry977]

LMAOOOO

[@rodrigobecerra750]

LOOOL 💀💀💀

[@ZetaMoolah]

LMFAO

[@jamesrichie7844]

Thank you for this quality comment. I hope you have a good day.

[@theangryfinger5795]

"Get out of my light uggo" Diogenese to Alexander the Great.

[@QuestionEverythingButWHY]

“A sign of celebrity is that his name is often worth more than his services” ― Daniel J. Boorstin

[@marcusanark2541]

Perfectly accurate.

[@issoulescondes3913]

Or than himself in general.

[@brunomoura8816]

Sign value

[@MAXX1up]

"More celebrities means fewer have staying power..." < This is something that I've been thinking about fairly recently. It seems like a lot of the TikToker's don't really have a high level of talent yet achieve a high level of fame. Viral dancing videos on TikTok don't really display a high level of skill (such as something you might see during a professional dance competition) yet they're shared/viewed potentially millions of times.

[@nicholasreed1399]

It’s almost child labor, Charli is only 16

[@BlaZay]

You're right, but just as you said, their fame is volatile, because it is very specific. Would any of us recognize the "hit or miss" girl without the same makeup if we were to see her anywhere else ? I doubt so. Would any of us care ? I also doubt so. But even then, you only need to break through once and you'll probably be able to live off contracts with sponsor brands. But if you ask me, that's a very empty way to live your life, not to mention the possible side effects of that spike of fame on your mental health.

[@Ramsey276one]

The Viral power is the IRL Internet version of Spiral Energy

[@melissaolson3984]

"In the future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes", Andy Warhol.

[@theduckk]

And my 15 minutes was in a KZbin comment section...

[@kieran.grant_]

My fifteen minutes was on the new York post for making a flamethrower.

[@vod96]

Chills

[@siegeofdarkness8212]

I'm gonna be rich and famous for way longer than 15 minutes, but with my luck it won't be until I've been dead for a couple years.

[@Borzogo]

Andy Warhol's instinctual understanding of fame and psychology was uncanny.

[@ahlishaholloway233]

I always felt the title "influencer" was too complimentary and inaccurate. "Sentient ad" would be far more apt. The term itself originates from ab advertising firm, KBA Marketing, and was in reference to the use of bartenders in nightclubs and bars to convince their guests to smoke cigarette brands sold by RJ Reynolds. Really, influencers are just the latest extension of consumerisms natural evolution. In the 1930s, characters in radio dramas would stop and begin advertising products, mid scene. The listeners were personally invested in their stories, and so would buy the product because they admired or enjoyed the characters selling it. With the popularity of television, celebrity advertising became more prominent. Of course there was no illusion that you "knew" the beautiful person slinging Lucky Strikes, but you were aware of their fame and prominence, and that influenced your decision. With influencers, you have the worst of both worlds. The fame and popularity of television and movie stars, with the audience investment of a radio drama. Every aspect of their lives are commodified, they're fame based on their ability to "brand" themselves. Life becomes one, unending piece of product placement.

[@drewwitte8473]

The internet isn't the problem, we are the problem. The internet just amplifies our voices and desires!

[@BigBoss-sm9xj]

Drew Witte we were the problem along

[@otum337]

We just want to be loved :(

[@otum337]

@Ian Corral ^ someone who didn't watch the video

[@otum337]

@Ian Corral Why do you think the internet is still to blame?

[@ot0m0t0]

Well my "internet" is filled with astronomy, physics, math and building. I once accidentally logged off went on "standard" youtube and was swamped with trash music, nobodys eating cinnamon and just absolute filth. It really painted a picture of the average.

[@QuestionEverythingButWHY]

"A man who wants to be famous will be afraid to stand alone, because he depends on people's flattery and good opinion."

[@scottk1525]

Is that Nietzsche?

[@wannabecar8733]

Want to bet me on that😏😂😂😂🤣

[@alexbennet4195]

Good thing this only applies to men then.

[@scottk1525]

@@alexbennet4195 Yeah, whereas women depend on flattery and good opinion whether they want to be famous or not.

[@alexbennet4195]

Scott K: BEGONE INCEL

[@Coconut7403]

When everyone is super, no one will be

[@TorquemadaTwist]

I guess a lot of people suffer from this syndrome.

[@MissNayNay]

It's true. Something is considered high value because of how inaccessible it is to some. This can be a bad thing, but in cases like fame, it is a good thing. Having a young man or woman with the personality of drying paint who does some random thing that anyone can do shouldn't afford them fame by the least. A small following, sure. But fame? And I felt this way in the 2000s when the onslaught of reality shows were on. None of those people deserved to be famous. Fame used to be valuable enough where only the most talented or heroic could attain it. Now all you have to do is put on clown make up, do some tacky dance, or do some stupid shit and wacky shit to attain it. Growing up on Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, Janet Jackson, Usher, etc, I never would had imagine in just a few decades this would have been the paradigm of fame now.

[@jecontreras98]

@@TorquemadaTwist I see what you did there

[@EyFmS]

Hey....That's the evil plot from the bad guy in The Incredibles movie 🤣.

[@ecoRfan]

@@MissNayNay actually influencers do remind me of early 00s trash culture, when MTV gave up on music and instead became mostly really bad “reality” shows. Even the way they dress is out of that era even if most weren’t even born then yet. As someone who was 8 in 2000, it all disgusts me.

[@WadeDMcGinnis]

I am surprised they did not mention gladiators. They were very similar to how we idolize athletes. They even had endorsements with various vendors.

[@user-go7mc4ez1d]

I think it's because gladiators achieved fame through accomplishments and deeds, this video is more focused on the strand of fame accomplished through depiction alone

[@daniellogan-scott5968]

Good point. I felt that a great deal was glossed over. Particularly Casanova, who I believe was the first person famous for being famous.

[@randomwordshere5202]

Completely agree - especially when Wisecrack claimed 'the start of consumerist society didn't happen for a decade' - gladiators were selling their sweat way before.

[@randomwordshere5202]

@@user-go7mc4ez1d You could say that Caesar didn't achieve through depiction alone though. Definitely agree with the image management side of your point, but it feels that gladiators also had an image - you'd always be a *certain* type of gladiator, fight in the same way and therefore advertisements would use those aspects to sell the upcoming fights. Plus, they would have headline fights and may even appear as part of product placement. I would argue they *had* to control their image - else how would successful fighters earn enough money to buy their freedom? Though if you've got counterpoints, would love to hear them.

[@nunyabiznes33]

@@randomwordshere5202 Booty Sweat™ did had a long history

[@Raziel312]

Fun fact: The French word for selfie is égoportrait. Ego Portrait I like the French word better.

[@johnwotek3816]

french here, no one use that word... it's like divulgacher/spoiler

[@issoulescondes3913]

I'm french and we don't use "egoportrait", we just say selfie. A litteral translation would be "autoportrait", but "egoportrait" represents very well how we use autoportrait

[@RED-jg6mt]

its pretty nice

[@JdotCarver]

French too. And yup. Totally bogus, no-one I know uses that word. Thought it's a fun showerthought.

[@blondegirlsezthis8798]

Sometimes I wish i was French so i could make fun of americans without making fun of myself! ;-)

[@ptarleton]

I don't succumb to this hollow worship of - IS THAT BRIAN DAVID GILBERT I LOVE THAT GUY

[@zeybarur]

It was in that moment that this video became a Gesamtkunstwerk

[@TheShizzlefication]

This may be my favorite comment ever lolol.

[@wowman542]

Literally me when they showed Jim sterling

[@wannabecar8733]

wowman542 Yeah📸🥂🍾

[@julianflowers]

Literally

[@SMTHUDSON]

"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent, my friend" -Qui Gon Jinn

[@jakedee4117]

The average person wants to be famous, the superior person wants to do something worthy of being famous, Confucius

[@christianrobertson4337]

I think Syndrome from The Incredibles said it best, "When everyone is super, no one will be"

[@e-male896]

Influencers are one of the many reasons that I've lost faith in the shitstorm that is humanity

[@mixinmasta]

not so fast bub

[@lucasreeserlarkin8996]

What you have to say 'Rexxy'..

[@foomfoom7547]

what about like mass genocide- we do that too

[@mysuperblog]

Did you have faith in it to begin with?

[@angelgjr1999]

I mostly just ignore it. It’s terrible for your mental health to actúally care about this. Think of it as a religion you don’t believe in. Just ignore it.

[@justindcook9]

The focus on the creation of a celebrity in this video is missing the contextualization of capitalism and how, unlike ever before, celebrity personas are commodified. I'm sure it dates back to about the 50's, but celebrities selling products has become an increasing trend. If you look at the contemporary celebrity as influencer, rather than becoming a celebrity through craft skills (i.e. acting, diplomacy, sport) they are becoming celebrity through persona creation alone. By using this persona as a mechanism to become a walking billboard to generate income they are effectively turning themselves into a commodity to be bought by corporate interests. They are giving up personal freedom of expression in the pursuit of capitalizing their (crafted) personality to corporate interests as a means to sell. Celebrity brands, corporate contracts, or celebrities being dumped from brands is all evidence of this commodification of their personhood.

[@instantpug7036]

i was wondering why this was about ‚democracy‘ and not ‚capitalism‘ when that is the definitely stronger drive in this. and tbh the defining one.

[@mzar62458]

What "freedom of expression" are these personas losing? Most I've seen are transparent when they want to sell you something through a sponsorship. As a matter of fact, most sell merchandise owned & controlled by them (eg: clothing).

[@joeeo99]

@@mzar62458 That in and of itself is part of the commodification. The appearance of being relatable or of being upfront is itself part of the crafted brand of many "influencers".

[@ln.5214]

"To the rise of Hell on Earth" *shows Twitter* INSTANT LIKE!

[@davidspooner4684]

Hahahaha... I came to the comics specifically to comment on that line. One of the best I've heard in a while.

[@mixinmasta]

ill say. Hail ap4rth3us!

[@mikejohnstonbob935]

#relatable

[@corwin32]

I’m clearly in the minority across human history, but I have never understood the allure of fame. I don’t want it. It sounds like a hellish way to live a life

[@Miranox2]

Fame gives you power and what people really want is power. It's not about fame for its own sake.

[@kaimagnus5760]

Ya see, I consoder true power the ability to go anywhere and do anything unnoticed. If I cant even go outside long enough to buy TP then am I the Merchant or the Product?

[@latte5946]

Fame always depends on recognition. People who want to recognise the value of their life by being "social". Hence, they recognise an 'influencer' as an archetype of the "social animal". A person whose worth is not gained on his own but through others. It seems like a morbid way to 'live' to me.

[@003mohamud]

In my eyes Fame is fleeting. Who is going to remember Leonardo DeCaprio in 3 generations? 4? Building a legacy that will have a positive impact and last many generations I think is far better. Planting trees, donating to building great works such as the Medicis, etc. but even buildings crumble and trees die. Who remembers the Medicis and Napoleons of Sumer? of Ancient Egypt and the Olmecs? I am always reminded of the poem by Percy Shelley: I met a traveller from an antique land, Who said-“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand, Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed; And on the pedestal, these words appear: My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

[@tanvikejriwal1]

I know, right? Imagine millions of people knowing about your every mistake *shudders*

[@thomasgray4188]

I hope they reveal they are talking about how markets are not democracy because social media is a market place not a democracy.

[@felipegonzalezklever9762]

Indeed, the market is not democratic, cuze the social industry is the only entity who has real and obliterating power to choose what is trendy.

[@felipegonzalezklever9762]

It’s really difficult for the masses to change what is trendy before the industry adapts it to produce money.

[@HamHamHampster]

It's neither. All online traffics are throttled nowadays. Here on KZbin you see whatever Susan wants you to see.

[@-haclong2366]

Thank you.

[@ThePurpleKiss101]

This doesn’t have much to do with democracy, rather narcissists being narcissistic.

[@Tempus0ptic]

Social media and the internet in general gave them a platform to make this possible

[@omnijack]

Cryo Optic is social media therefore a product of democracy? Because there are large social networks in China that beg to differ.

[@WoolyNips]

And the people who look up to them as some type of idol. From athletes to the tik tok stars. People look up to them.

[@marcoantino2920]

I think the point they are making, is that democracybis about giving power to the people, this also created the freedom of speech, Therefore the attitude "everyones opinions are worth the same" (i disagree with that. Everyone should have the same right to voice their opinion but not all of them should be taken as the same

[@marcoantino2920]

@@omnijack are there influencers on china China is not a democracy, they get all sorts of penalties for speaking their minds,

[@Borzogo]

"Logan Paul is trying to revive his career" is an attractive, but disingenuous narrative. The guy is richer and more popular than ever. At most he lost some of that mainstream attention after the suicide debacle, but that's it.

[@RomanZolanski123]

The Jawbone of an Ass kinda dumb to say he’s redeemed himself after you just admitted you don’t anything else he’s done

[@vsssa1845]

because of that debacle his name reached people who didn't even know him until then.

[@Mordoras1379]

@The Jawbone of an Ass so he's redeemed because he made a funny?

[@Vivi_9]

@@Mordoras1379 yes. What he did was stupid, people get outraged, nobody was hurt, the end. It's stupid to still be mad at him for something that happened years ago that hurt noone.

[@morgandfreeman4488]

@The Jawbone of an Ass somehow being funny is enough to redeem an act of complete disrespect to a dead person ...

[@xaviercopeland2789]

This isn’t democracy, but a need for validation.

[@Chas-OTE]

As someone who barely interacts in social media. It's hard not to notice how social media changed some of my friends, those who pretty much live on facebook, instagram and twitter, over the years. The need for validation by your peers is a hell of a thing. Amplified to potentially dangerous extremes in those who use social media too much.

[@TheArsenalgunner28]

Chas O.T.E-the seek for validation has ALWAYS been around, but more so for elders. Social media, advertising and marketing have all brought it to the younger generation which is why it feels like it’s new.

[@natalyamartirosyan]

They didn’t mean democracy as in “political system”. In the end she says “democratization of fame” meaning that fame is now available to everyone as opposed to earlier times.

[@thegoodsouphotel8332]

Beautiful.

[@joeeo99]

What's the difference?

[@alexeinuville2555]

"The need to be observed and understood was once satisfied by God. Now we can implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms." The human organism always worships. First it was the gods, then it was fame (the observation and judgment of others), next it will be the self-aware systems you have built to realize truly omnipresent observation and judgment." "The human being created civilization not because of a willingness but because of a need to be assimilated into higher orders of structure and meaning." "You will soon have your God, and you will make it with your own hands." I copypasted some of the most powerful (to my understanting) lines of the conversation with the Morpheus IA in Deus Ex, this video made me remember.

[@BerkaySoyluoglu]

The idea of abandoning religion is fairly new. So, it would be misguided to assume that just yet.

[@alexeinuville2555]

@@BerkaySoyluoglu oh, is not about abandoning religion, is about what human race makes a recipient for their admiration almost as worship. The premise is that regardless of individual beliefs, throughout history, mankind has crafted their deities at the image of their own view on what was important to their culture (for example greek's pantheon of gods and demigods); and as humanity as a whole evolves, so does their goals and ambitions, thus creating new form of ideas to pursue in the way older cultures devoted their attention to religions or gods

[@bard5865]

@@alexeinuville2555 Maybe now people will understand the First Commandment

[@BerkaySoyluoglu]

@@alexeinuville2555 Not all civilizations did that. Only christians believe that God created man in his own image. Philosophies change in the eastern side of the world. Apart from that there are multiple religions that have nothing to do with their own culture. People like to make up stuff for entertainment. That's about it really. I researched religion a lot and can say that with the rise of radio and television, people found newer ways of entertainment and stopped this nonsense. For example people in rural areas in 1990s still used to make up mystical creatures in Turkey if I'm not mistaken but could be another country. I'm not sure. Itinerary writers used to make up magical events and characters and claim that they were true. I guess absence of Wikipedia really affected people's way of thought. People wasn't thinking rationally as well. Neurological research claims that atheists have higher cognitive skills (IQ basically) than people that believe in a religion. You don't have the tendency to question stuff once you're in a religion. Lastly, militaristic civilizations' religions leaned heavily on war and ignored many aspects of worship and idolization many religions have. So, I guess it's just a way of coping with the world and making a set of rules for survival. Maybe, religions were a big part of our evolution since it tells you what to do or not to do.

[@alexeinuville2555]

@@BerkaySoyluoglu I think you misread me 😅😅😅 I agree with you, I never said God created man at His image, but that different cultures created their own gods at *their* own image (the image of the people) because their gods were representations of what they hold as values of life in their own culture. I agree with you

[@e-male896]

I've always hated influencers vloggers , family friendly channels and beauty channels for their awful content and horrendes personalities.

[@Mrpeely1]

So just because you don’t like someone doesn’t mean it’s terrible

[@canti7951]

@@Mrpeely1 most of them are objectively terrible, scummy, and disingenuous.

[@Mrpeely1]

GORB !! Oh because you know most of them on a personal level wow that’s amazing

[@dertythegrower]

Please also check Zeducation, youll die laughing at the social justice leftwing fakers, daily

[@t1nytim]

@@Mrpeely1 I mean sure...none of us here probably do. But that doesn't stop them from presenting themselves in public as terrible people. Off camera they could have great personalities, but I care less about that, and more about the influence of their terrible on-screen antics.

[@KorporalKReephdmkiytrecv69]

Did we need influencers ever? No Why do they exist? No one knows Should they exist? N O

[@flockinify]

It's quite obvious why they exist. Spot on with your other two statements though.

[@MultiBoxingKid]

But they will continue to exist, whether you like it or not. And it can’t be stopped, because groups of people either don’t have enough influence to stop it, or like me, they don’t care.

[@raz1572]

If there's a demand someone will supply.

[@PK-MegaLolCaT]

*Did we need influencers ever?* .... wrong questions.. anyone that becomes some sort of admirable figure for others to "look up to"..will become a source of influence *Why do they Exist?* .. because we all start our lives at the button.. and there for anyone that seems to be more successful or have a better grasp on reality becomes someone "people look up to" *Should they exist?* you cant stop them from existing.. all you can do is learn to recognize the dangers that come along them.. and tech others about does dangers so they can engage in a healthy way with them.

[@Armendicus]

They are nothing but living billboards for products.

[@patwilson9186]

Why can't we call influencers by their old title Sellouts

[@agnia85]

These people can't influence me to do anything to be honest

[@BlaZay]

You see, that's where some of you who think this _might_ be wrong. Even if you don't actively imitate any person in particular, there's a high chance the mere exposure to these people, their actions and their opinions, affect yours in some way other than your direct opinion of them. You _might_ also think of their finite number of followers as one united group which shares the same opinions and interests, or at least approves of them, again affecting yours indirectly. And even if you _actually_ don't let yourself be biased by any of this, I can guarantee you that among the people who think the same, you're in the minority. That's why they're "influencers". They influence people, consciously or not.

[@deleted01]

All they want is your time and attention, which brings them ad revenues

[@BRobMorris]

@@BlaZay that's a much better way of saying what I was going to say: "check you out big dick"

[@agnia85]

@@BlaZay I just don't watch this garbage. KZbin is for let's plays and educational videos.

[@sharilshahed6106]

@@agnia85 that makes 2 of us, as of recent habits lol.

[@stevenhill7487]

I would like to note that Alexander the Great created *one* of the largest empires, not the largest, this view is often due to Eurocentric history (only viewing European history as important)

[@rafaljt]

He created the greates empire up to the moment. Of course there were Romans, Arabs, Mongols but they were later in history.

[@Riku-zv5dk]

@@rafaljt And the British who had the largest Empire in history

[@BygoneT]

Did you last read a book 60 years ago? Literally every history book includes some idiotic footnote nobody ever looks at saying "There are bigger empires such as Genghis Khan's and X, Y, Z."

[@KageNoTenshi]

Ya Genghis and his decedents probably wanted to have a word about that title, not to mention colonial age Britain

[@schechter01]

I noticed that, too (though I hesitate to invoke the "Eurocentric" label). The largest contiguous empire was almost certainly the Mongol one, carved out by Jenghis Khan & his generals (& immediate descendants).

[@nix6940]

"When everyone is a celebrity, nobody will be"

[@Boricosa]

"Quote from someone well known to gain likes for being unoriginal" -The comment section

[@yeet7043]

So woke

[@marcsalzman8082]

GOOD 1.

[@marcsalzman8082]

@@yeet7043 SO WOKE, YOU'RE ASLEEP. AS OSCAR WILDE IS CREDITED W/SAYING, "I CAN ONLY BE ME BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IS TAKEN. "

[@erichgolden1812]

@@marcsalzman8082 Why are you yelling in type format?

[@Jurassicparkatmospheres]

Right on dude, knew the comments would be trash

[@hbaldinr]

Just when I thought that people couldn't be dumber, that influencer thing happened

[@camerontaylor7471]

I just don’t get it... a bunch of followers waiting for an influencer to make post on social media that features current products/brand for which they getting payed to hype up and literally sell to you... I would never give people like that the time of day, it is the epitome of fake!

[@yuribezmenovstanaccount3120]

Social media is the first form of attention some people ever received, and it shows.

[@BennettYancey]

Yep!

[@voicesofmarshians528]

Alexander the Great created the world’s largest empire in just 13 years. Mongol Empire: Am I a joke to you?!

[@24flyingcats84]

They meant at that time it was the greatest. Alexander was born a long time before Genghis.

[@user-dn6ht6bo7r]

@@24flyingcats84 actually he still created the biggest empire ever as a single PERSON. There have been larger empires after his time but none were created by a single leader. Mongolian empire has had many rulers to become as large as it was at it's peak. Same for Roman empire, British empire, mughal empire and any Chinese.

[@SuperMetalMage]

Hey Jim Sterling is a celebrity! That would give him a good laugh.

[@Seppevh]

thank god for him

[@Ramsey276one]

They all would...! I forgot how many Characters he's got

[@Bobylein1337]

His only purpose in the system is to sell games. Oh wait...

[@NuntiusGris]

Yeah, they really droped the ball with that one

[@pequodexpress]

When everyone is a "celebrity," no one is a celebrity. There is only the endless aspirational desire, and that is good only for Goldman Sachs.

[@madhavdaga]

All of these "famous" people are going to be forgotten eventually anyway

[@fakenamington6747]

Everyone will eventually. Who knows the human race may be extinct in a few centuries. Nothing is permanent.

[@juanperret7044]

Influencer have always existed it was just harder to gain influence in the past

[@fauberkaupfmann982]

Exactly. A popular hot chick wearing a cool outfit could be counted as an influencer.

[@Marsyas01]

"Rep your fave philosophy channel in style..." Me: *laughs nervously, glances at Philosophy Tube, then back to Wisecrack*

[@PeacefulAutistic]

The Beatles were really the first four to have “stans” seriously. Like it’s crazy how famous they still are to this day.

[@Bartholomule01]

I love where fame is going tbh in terms of how accessible entertainers in specific niches are becoming. A number of my favorite KZbinrs and other kinds of content creators aren't famous enough that the average person has heard of them, but they are among my favorites for the unique things they bring to the table. I am really glad that in this day an age, it's possible to find content you enjoy where the creator has so few views, because even 20 years ago, you finding something truly niche that scratches an itch you crave was a lot harder. Glad that even with some smaller people avenues like Patreon or just more typical merch stores and stuff help those people make more money off their art and passion without having a huge viral hit and stuff first.

[@gh0s1wav]

Thank you. A comment that's not just: influencers = bad.

[@masonm600]

Wasn't looking when she said "hell on earth." Still pictured Twitter.

[@AndreaRuizCa]

Is wisecrack an influencer?

[@wannabecar8733]

Wisecrack influences his viewers & sells ideas

[@angelgjr1999]

lol they are. Comments have been criticizing them for years, because it seems hypocritical for them to criticize “influencers who sell their products” while they do the exact same thing.

[@andrewkuebler4335]

What I never understood was how influencers got so popular. I have always ignored them like I ignore cheesy ads, and for the same reason. They are so obviously fake and shallow in the interest of selling something, whatever that might be. And I was born in 1999, it's not like a was really old enough to not grow up with influencers at all. Though, I was refrained from using to internet until I was older, almost a teenager, and my parents instilled very early the ideas of being safe and cautious online.

[@bloodsin28]

Niiiiiiiice video! That was legit good. I really appreciate you taking it to the "way, way back" and stepping us through it. Very cool and interesting.

[@hunor_anormal_guy5728]

17:46 Every single influencer would have been a fiting example but Mr.Beast 😭

[@taylemounes]

Mr.Beast: literally spends millions of dollars on and to entertain fans Liza: just an occasional thank u...

[@marktaylorauthor1000]

I do like the idea of the micro celebrity who reflects the varied interests and passions of the normal person in life. We’ve seen this is Patreon where we can support the people we feel are contributing to something we care about, even if no one else cares about it

[@vice.nor.virtue]

Watching this made me realise, at the age of 28 with a fantastic gigantic art portfolio, a lot of personality, and a high degree of authenticity. I need to stop hating on social media, and instead, embrace it. I'm ready to become an influencer.

[@silverblue73]

Wisecrack: How did this happennnn?! Also Wisecrack: some t-shirts caps n mugs tho

[@daniriba6184]

"Everybody wants and nobody's ashamed Everybody wants you to know their name"

[@Darkstar1484]

I think it's also worth remembering that with things like twitch, youtube and tiktok it's infinitely easier to produce content so it also becomes easier to find audiences/shotgun content out and see what ends up sticking. It also means that people that are looking for particular kinds of entertainment (horror, obscure interests, etc.) are more likely to find something that scratches their particular itch. I wouldn't call Night Mind and influencer for instance but in terms of horror analysis channels they're probably one of the biggest and most influential and they also have endorsement deals. Like anything else I would call the new celebrity thing a mixed bag, as while I may not like or be especially interested in a lot of the influencers the means of people to make their own content that helped create said influencers is, in my view, a good thing.

[@mrwayne548]

“Unplannedemic” I can’t roll my eyes any fucking harder

[@studiovicarious]

remember that time when people posted things on the internet just for fun

[@user-ir8fx6uv1j]

It can be hard to keep one's self from being drawn in to the fame cycle. The expression of frustration at people who are famous for being famous is about just as engaged, if not more so, than those who simply are drawn to the famous. I consider myself fairly fortunate, having been born in 1980, that I grew up without the internet and having personally observed how it has grown over time. Effectively, I got to develop my own narrative of who I am before these things were overturned by the loud of the internet. I was able to create a personal space in which to develop myself. While still possible to accomplish, I worry about my daughter, born into this new world without having previously established her identity. I'll need to work to make sure she doesn't have that overwhelm her. I disagree with the notion though that influencers live in this one-way relationship. While the most vapid likely just throw something on a screen, a lot of the shows I watch on youtube (not really on the others) have a lot of effort put into them in order to entertain or educate me (well, not me personally). That is to say, a lot of effort goes into producing the various Crash Course series, for example. One might debate whether this counts as an influencer. I don't think they particularly do sponsorships in the same way that we think of typically when we think of "influencers". However, they are producing a product that I am able to take advantage of and it's a product I enjoy. There is all that effort and I happen to occasionally leave a comment about how much I appreciate the work and I subscribe to premium which results in the video creator getting a bit more revenue. Maybe, though, the crash course people, or Wisecrack, or Historia Civilis isn't exactly what is meant by influencers, though I find it hard to write a definition that includes the general sentiment while excluding the ones I just mentioned. Maybe the one-way relationship though is the definition of the influencer. I don't know.

[@fauberkaupfmann982]

I always saw celebrities as a topic people can talk about in their vague time. People who worship celebrities are a minority in my view, most people just dont give a fuck. Those who do just wish they could be that celebrity, they dont truly care about them neither. They just want the spotlight.

[@ckl9390]

But in the case of the educational or entertainment producers it's not a strictly one sided relationship as you are gaining something from it. They are producing a product which you are consuming. If making said product is their living, or takes so much time as to detract from a "day job" then your contribution by subscription, willingness to tolerate advertisement space, or even that "persona" (not always a single individual) sponsoring a product directly contributes to them earning a living doing something they like and are good at. It is at that point somewhat mutual, though it is distributed across a possibly large audience.

[@astridforel5702]

I've always think celebrities are regular people in the spotlight. Some use the attention to do dumb things, others try to use their influence to make good things. I don't understand why people want to know everything about famous people, especially why they want to know all the gossips... It all seems so pointless.

[@07jackg]

This bangs - great content just when I needed some context and inspiration for story telling.

[@maxidaho]

Influencers...because everyone slows down for a gruesome car wreck.

[@therasbull]

Jared! We miss you!

[@drose6437]

*sigh*

[@theconductoresplin8092]

Same

[@volodyadykun6490]

Yeah, but I hope he's happy with whatever he wants to do

[@anthonyleach7608]

Where did he go

[@volodyadykun6490]

@@anthonyleach7608 there is video about it some time ago, check it out

[@JoaoJGabriel]

I love you, Helen! Your videos are DA BEST!

[@montague4931]

Please tell me I’m not the only one who got to 12:21 only to be interrupted by an ad for some show I’m never gonna watch.

[@hellper198]

Influencers, I just don't care for them.

[@ZumZumZarum]

"One sided relationship" and *Mr. freaking Beast on screen* seems contradictory, doesn't it?

[@theghostofcause5580]

"...but nobody wants to see monsters no more, they want Shady (I'm chop liver)"

[@MelodicQuest]

Fame is always fleeting. Even the most recognizable celebrities will be forgotten eventually.

[@erichanson3369]

Virtually all of the KZbin videos that I enjoy the most--and especially those I have chosen to subscribe to--produce legitimately, genuinely thoughtful content (in addition to usually displaying people who are extraordinarily skilled at performing for an audience). I can say with confidence that if my favorite 'influencers' started taking steps to decrease the amount of resources (including and perhaps especially time) needed in planning, critical thought, and overall preparation, I would notice this change fairly quickly and not support these channels as I do now. There's a reason I prefer not to subscribe to the likes of PewDiePie, MrBeast, Markiplier, and other channels with similar themes, preferring instead 'Jim Sterling', 'Philosophy Tube', 'Game Theory', etc. in addition to 'Wisecrack'. Finally, I have a feeling a great many others who also watch 'Wisecrack' videos more rather than less often share most of my above sentiments.

[@scottk1525]

You guys really need to tone down the woosh sound effect

[@E71101]

Gorgeous video! Before this I really don’t understand this part of human behavior. Now I start understanding it better, because of history of that behavior in human culture. Thank you!

[@Brownyman]

Everyone: I love democracy and celebrity! Socrates:

[@artemisamory]

Growing up, my dream was to be "famous". In the 90s & 2000s, this meant for me becoming a pop star, then actress, then clothing designer, etc... I idolized Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Paris Hilton. I thought what I had to do was write songs and send them to labels. I never sent any songs off considering my family couldn't afford singing or dancing lessons anyway, but I was still convinced I was going to famous. At the time though, there wasn't much I could do to become famous other than wait. If I grew up in the 2010s however, I would have had a KZbin, TikTok, Instagram, Twitch... Maybe I would have achieved some level of fame. These things just weren't attainable when I was a teen. In the end, I'm glad I grew up in the 90s & 2000s without social media... God knows who I would have become.

[@NotShowingOff]

Here is the thing. “Democratization” doesn’t have to be something good. It can mean that without the proper filters, the person propped up by celebrity status represents the society’s reactionary, impulsive instincts.

[@chillychowmein]

The poofy white wedding dress was an expensive single use item just for rich people to flex. Stark white clothing in general was a symbol of wealth as that color was one of the hardest to achieve and maintain.

[@erickgarcia9377]

"What ever happened to the American dream" "It came true"

[@alysiamerdavid-wasser9165]

Alternative Title: Influencers: How *History* made Monsters: From Alexander the Great to Lincoln to TV to Logan Paul.

[@maxwelljarowey2612]

Lincoln freed the slaves he was a good leader

[@davidspooner4684]

"Is the contemporary form of celebrity making us all fame-crazed monsters?" -- No. Most people have always been fame-crazed, shallow, idiotic. "Is the democratization of fame actually empowering." I don't know if it is empowering or not, but hopefully it leads to something close to the death of celebrity.

[@cullenlatham2366]

I think the paradox of fame, at least when proposing a sustainable level of fame, boils down to the idea of friendship. You dont know every last detail of your friend's life, but find the ability to communicate with them (even if only an illusion of perception) to be appealing. Famous people in the modern area are the ones with the most "friends". If you have 1 friend, you are famous to them and they are famous to you, the tricky part comes the imbalance in the relationship quantity. if you have 10 friends, you are famous to them, but to you that makes 10 people to divide attention between. It is not a slope, but an exponential curve. bring it up to the scale of 1 person with 1 million "friends", and the relationship seems far more one-sided to an outside perspective. At that point, "friends" become "fans", and the disparity in ratio has to be rectified by exposure. The more fans someone has, the less secrets the 1 can hide, whereas each of the fans can maintain a inversely proportional level of anonymity. The internet has allowed everyone to present themselves for an audience, with different hierarchal tiers. Keeping the scale relatively small, KZbin is more famous than all the channels and videos posted on it. Channels and Videos have an interesting relationship where some videos exceed the fame of the channel, whereas others are only watched by those already devoted to the channel itself. The comments in a comment section then get proportionally less fame, and replies to said comments get even less. Looking at the order in reverse indicates the reason for the tiers in this example: replies can only exist on comments, which can only exist on videos, who need a channel to be associated with, which finally has to be hosted on youtube itself. The audience for the lowest fame is a fraction of the audience for the highest fame.

[@dantetre]

"I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it's not the answer." Jim Carey

[@uria3679]

As someone once said “Anarchy leads to Tyranny”

[@callofthewild9175]

Thumbs up for the "I, Claudius" footage. I love that series.

[@miembrosgibran]

Fk you

[@miembrosgibran]

God bless the united states of america

[@miembrosgibran]

USA USA USA

[@callofthewild9175]

@@miembrosgibran You okay over there? Forget to take your meds??

[@dertythegrower]

Tiktok is literally fake people followed by fake kids... kinda sad truth

[@LilyGrace1990]

Honestly having a small following is more fun. You can talk to people who enjoy your work while also not having to worry about being inaccessible to millions. Plus you get to know the people who enjoy what you do (in my case, making video games) and you get to share the process with them. I don't need fame, but I like my work being appreciated. That's enough. And besides, it keeps me motivated to keep making content they like instead of just showing off to them and lording my popularity over them.

[@markandre1528]

nicely done -- and thanks for the shout out!

[@jonathansiles5120]

Parasocial relationship, one sided. Except MrBeast. He will buy a car o an island.

[@simpleman8368]

When most of the video was a history lesson and the last few minutes show influencers. Clickbait

[@langolier9]

Sometimes I like to predict how I’m going to feel about a KZbin video in my first 30 seconds and I predict I will think you are brilliant and hilarious

[@SantiagoDiaz-wi7uz]

I believe its one of the best videos in this channel so far

[@chi2264]

It’s ironic how you put mr beast and say that influencers don’t give back. I know most influencers are stupid but mr. Beast do give back a lot

[@mykonstantine95]

Actually, the title should be "Influencers: How Capitalism Created a Monster"

[@DamienDespair]

Yeah, because no one has ever heard of socialist fame monsters, like Marx and Lennon. Um... wait.

[@mykonstantine95]

@@DamienDespair Wait John Lennon was a socialist? RAD! Oh, did you mean Lenin? Ok.

[@fremenchips]

just look up Alexey Stakhanov.

[@otum337]

Choked on my food at the "hell on Earth" part HAHAHAH

[@PanicbyExample]

fame for fame's sake and fame as a form of social stability seems like an important nuance to leave overshadowed by the idea that fame is something pursued by people in power

[@Hotshot2k4]

It would seem that this time the commenters are the actual experts on the subject and their rigorous research and consideration of the subject has led them to the expert opinion that influencers all suck, and people who like them all suck. The exception being whatever creators they like, likely due to their own gender or socioeconomic circumstances.

[@jgreenbelt]

are you guys criticizing yourself while criticizing the system you depend on to make a living?

[@somkeshav4143]

Yes

[@tleilaxu42]

16:53 CRONCH! Seriously, search for "Griffin banana cronch" to hear the horrifyingly loud sound of banana vore.

[@BenCaesar]

It's good to know the western history of celebrity would be interesting to see how other cultures treated celebrity too. Great video essay 👏🏾

[@adamloutsenhizer1959]

No. I’m sorry. I love y’all, but you’re NOT replacing Jared with the watch mojo girl.

[@briankoontz1]

What more than anything else creates fame is a class society. Lower class people are terrorized, risking homelessness, malnutrition, and preventable disease, and fame provides the social control necessary to ensure material well-being. Only societies with substantial class distinctions have fame. Every look, every sigh of wistful happiness, every thought directed toward a celebrity gives them more fame, builds them into something than can be (and usually is) leveraged for the increased power and wealth of not only that celebrity, but every agent of capital (their managers, agents, studios) associated with them. Since we live in a largely unregulated unlimited capitalist world, there is practically no limit to the amount of power and wealth that one could accumulate, with effective curation. Democracy eliminates class and therefore eliminates fame. KZbin is not a result of "democracy out of control". It's a result of the decimation of democratic hopes. We do not believe that democracy is possible in our world of extreme corporate domination. We not believe that we can achieve a classless society. So "better to join them than to fight them" - KZbin influencers have sold out their hopes for a classless society, have "sold their souls" to use a pointedly outdated phrase, and are chasing the fame train, the endless accumulation of power and wealth. What Wisecrack mistakenly calls "democracy" is rather a deepening of social control - Fame is no longer for "special people", but for everybody. Before people chased fame, they fought for a more democratic world. They did the hard, thankless work necessary for that. Now, with hashtag activism, one can build a brand, build fame through being "a good person", by performing allegiance with noble causes. The idea, from a capitalist point of view, is to popularize a class-based society. To create an enormous lower-class, where people battle each other, the few winners of those battles then becoming "influencers" over the bloodied dregs of humanity they've left behind. The influencers in turn, fighting their entire lives for fame and glory, take pride in their accomplishments, and tell themselves that they deserve their wealth - the rest of humanity just didn't want it enough, just didn't work hard enough. And those remaining billions of impoverished and decimated people look up to the very people who clawed their way past them to get where they are. How can they complain? After all, it's all a game, and they just didn't play well enough to win.

[@jakedee4117]

People love and aspire to be wise, strong, beautiful and yes also rich and powerful. A classless society would drag down the best people and also the best parts in people. Why would equality mean everyone is equally excellent when it's much easier for everyone to be equally terrible ?

[@briankoontz1]

​@@jakedee4117 People waste their lives at gyms to be strong, spend hours a day preparing themselves to be beautiful, carefully choose popular quotes to be "wise", and exploit desires and people to be rich and powerful. All of this is produced not only by imperialism that brings stolen wealth into the society to then be fought over, but by the class society that celebrates the process of fighting over that stolen wealth, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Winners of that fight are "good" people, what you describe as "the best" people, losers are "bad" people, and those who refuse to fight are "crazy" or "naive" people. Class societies leverage human misery and desperation. Hence the "starving artist" who needs to either "git gud" at art or at least produce whatever is popular to sell his work and avoid starvation. But if we acknowledge that misery and desperation are terrible psychological conditions, rather than celebrating them in order to justify the existence of Bill Gates, then we begin by building a society that serves the needs of all people, and discourage misery and desperation. Our own society produces mediocrity precisely because unlimited capitalism makes everyone a slave to the market. The starving artist wants to be a great artist, but it's easier and much less risky to make whatever sells. He tells themselves that he'll do this until he saves up enough money to become a "true artist". This usually never happens, so he spends his life as an unhappy slave avoiding starvation, producing things that barely resemble what he desires to make. Bill Gates is not excellent. Donald Trump is not excellent. Joe Biden is not excellent. Our society does not reward excellence and punish mediocrity, it rewards control over markets and "climbing the corporate ladder" - it's Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the Poor, instead of happiness for everyone.

[@jakedee4117]

@@briankoontz1 The better and the worse have existed in every society, it's not a modern creation. You think the Empires stole what they had from the tribes, yet the Empires were massively rich and powerful and had things the tribes never had. You would give the tribes an excuse to whine and complain when they lose. I would give them the power to be strong themselves.

[@briankoontz1]

@@jakedee4117 "Might makes right" has a long history of criticism, so there's no need for me to repeat it here. Power in-and-of-itself is nihilistic. The vampire's quest for eternal life leads to ending the lives of any less powerful being, harming the world and ultimately dooming itself. Societies that are truly rich don't need to steal. Societies that are only satisfied when they have everything and everyone else has nothing, who along the way convince those people left alive that they are "the best" and everyone else are "losers", are the most tragic societies in human history. Before one can convince the world they are great, they need to convince themselves. Once they do that, they cannot change for the better - they must be overthrown.

[@jakedee4117]

@@briankoontz1 Now we're just playing word games, to be alive, to breathe, to walk on planet earth is to have power. To seek to stay alive is to seek power. Are feminists who seek female emPOWERment seeking nihilist cruelty ? The comments about society were specifically directed at those who say that American wealth was built on black slavery or that the British Empire's wealth was stolen from India. Both false. America would have been much richer without slavery and African Americans are richer, stronger, freer and more numerous than they have ever been, certainly much richer and freer than their African cousins. Much the same could be said about India which was larger, stronger and richer when the British left than when they arrived. That's the great strength of capitalism, even with it's colonial elements. Trade leaves both parties better off, even if one is richer than the other. Resentment that others are doing better than you is poison and will block your path to true empowerment.

[@shity_animation]

Great analysis.

[@zanderhenriksen6776]

I think that this is good trend, because it increases the chances of good ideas being shared - like yours. It also helps empower people, which helps making debates and such more readily available, which in turn also increases the chances of a good idea coming to light.