this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
538 points (99.3% liked)

politics

30428 readers
2741 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A slim majority of voting Democrats defied leader Jeffries, backing failed Massie amendment to cut $3.3 billion

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] daannii@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I guess your definition of influencer is different than mine. I think of influencers as a face selling products and lifestyle crap. Basically advertising.

But your definition expands to include pretty much anyone making any commentary on anything. Even local news reporters.

Here is the Booker incident I am referring to. https://www.wired.com/story/leak-exposes-members-of-peter-thiels-secretive-dialog-society/

And I'm sure there are a handful of good Dems. I can think of a few. But like 80% of them are corrupt and need replaced.

If the majority were working for the people we wouldn't be in this shit show we are in now.

[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think your narrow definition is part of the problem. There's much more to sell than products and lifestyle crap. It's why two certain countries have been funneling billions of dollars to social media political commentators. Because they're influencers. It's why governments are fighting so hard to gain control over those platforms, because every single video on them is meant to influence.

I don't know if you are familiar with Nick Powers but he is another leftist political commentator, but cites sources and had a site where you can see not only every source he uses for every video, but gobs of free spreadsheets that are completely transparent about their sources and allow anyone to keep track of both federal and state bills and who votes which way on each one. It is an amazing resource and he consistently uses it to debunk other influencers (emphasis on other) on both the left and the right. He is transparent about entities that try to pay him to speak on certain narratives or use certain soundbites and calls them out when used by others, and always asks viewers to do their own research despite the fact that his work is heavily sourced. And he is fully transparent about his position as an influencer. Anything less from any popular content creator should be seen as clear propagandizing. But yes I agree that Booker sucks, we just need to make sure we are basing him sucking on fact and not conjecture, you dig? If the majority were working for the people we wouldn't be in this shit show we are now, I completely agree. And by majority I include the people, who are constantly working against their own best interests.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm just saying your argument is that anyone who could influence is an "influencer".

I'm not saying you are wrong but that we definitely have different definitions.

I mean you could even extend that to saying a history teacher is an influencer.

I think that definition is too loose but I acknowledge that there is no specific defined cultural definition so it's up for personal interpretation.

[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

Technically yes, but also no. We're talking about two different thresholds.

I wouldn't call a history teacher an influencer just because they influence people. My definition is much narrower. If someone consistently posts content online and has an audience in the thousands or more, they're an influencer, regardless of whether they're obviously selling a product.

The influence itself is the commodity. Advertising is only one way to monetize it. We've seen adversarial governments spend billions under the table paying popular Instagram and TikTok personalities to shape public opinion, and governments around the world are fighting over control of these platforms precisely because people with large online audiences can influence beliefs and behavior at scale. That's what makes them influencers. It isn't my definition, it's what the term commonly refers to. Thinking someone has to be in your face marketing to you to be an influencer only serves to make influencers more effective at shaping public opinion.