I once had 20,000 followers on Google+, but I still only had six inches where it mattered.
I have no idea how many people pull my website's RSS feed because I've disabled HTTP logging, and I'm fine with that.
I have zero(0) regrets for leaving social media several years ago. I still keep up with some nice people via Mastodon tho - by subbing to their RSS on Feeder, and then just e-mailing them if I need/want to correspond with them. Easy. I am not ON masto.
And here's a thing that "irks" me, and still irks me - follower counts. Why are they public? What purpose/utility does it serve in any way whatsoever? If someone has followers - be it 1 follower or 100,000 - ok, show it to THEM, no one else needs to know about it.
To me, it serves exactly zero purpose other than showing so and so is "better", "cooler", "more popular", etc than anyone who has a lower number.
So, there's a BS gripe, which effects me in no actual way, as I almost never go TO Mastodon, or any social site, but, it IS a worthless metric (to be displayed publicly).
Hope everyone is well!
until later...
I once had 20,000 followers on Google+, but I still only had six inches where it mattered.
I have no idea how many people pull my website's RSS feed because I've disabled HTTP logging, and I'm fine with that.
You aren't the only one believing that follower counts only exist to foster the belief of insignificant people that they are more important than they actually are. It's just another social status indicator, though a far less reliable one – anyone can artificially boost their counts by buying bots, after all!
Let's see... cult leaders have followers. Hmmm....
Maybe to show who could be the best 'lil cult leader this side 'o the social network...?
gemini://textmonger.pollux.casa/
That's something I never thought about. It's public because it's for you make money with it. For You to be egotistic about it. It's ode to individualism, if I may say.