Online Influencers & Internet Celebrities

[Kallistero]

This is a discussion that we've largely forgone here. The online influencer landscape has a lot of values that seem incompatible with things many of us admire about this part of the Web. I have a lot of opinions on this, but I think it'd be better for open discussion if I just ask some questions instead:

• What do you generally think of online influencers?
• What do you believe their role has been when it comes to the evolution of people's engagement with the Web?
• Are you particularly invested in any online influencers?
• If an influencer came here, do you think this could be a welcoming place for them?
• Do you believe that becoming an influencer always sacrifices some authenticity?
• Since the role of online creators has changed a lot in the recent decades, do you see a future where influencers may create freeform as they did in the past, back before people even knew it was a potential career path?
• If someone wanted to encourage a lot of people to think about the things they value or some important thing that exists, how might they accomplish spreading that message without influencer marketing tactics? Would you consider there to be alternatives for what it accomplishes, or is it all-encompassing for that?

 

[SeaSlugUFO]

This is a discussion that we've largely forgone here. The online influencer landscape has a lot of values that seem incompatible with things many of us admire about this part of the Web. I have a lot of opinions on this, but I think it'd be better for open discussion if I just ask some questions instead:

• What do you generally think of online influencers?
• What do you believe their role has been when it comes to the evolution of people's engagement with the Web?
• Are you particularly invested in any online influencers?
• If an influencer came here, do you think this could be a welcoming place for them?
• Do you believe that becoming an influencer always sacrifices some authenticity?
• Since the role of online creators has changed a lot in the recent decades, do you see a future where influencers may create freeform as they did in the past, back before people even knew it was a potential career path?
• If someone wanted to encourage a lot of people to think about the things they value or some important thing that exists, how might they accomplish spreading that message without influencer marketing tactics? Would you consider there to be alternatives for what it accomplishes, or is it all-encompassing for that?

 

• What do you generally think of online influencers?

In order to compete and stay relevant on social media, it requires a lot of content to be pushed out, which ends up being an unhealthy amount of time and energy spent online. To lower the quantity of posts, you can increase the quality, that way, you're still getting a lot of views/clicks/etc. Unfortunately, this means entertaining engagement bait (whether that's shock bait, rage bait, etc). I'm not a fan of this content on the internet and I consider it one of the elements that have contributed to the internet being a hostile space for many. (Constant ragebait leads to constant discourse and fighting and harassment, etc)

• What do you believe their role has been when it comes to the evolution of people's engagement with the Web?

Overall negative, for reasons stated above. "Influencer" seems like a fancy word for "Salesman". If it was truly just "a person who is regarded as an expert within their particular field that also has a steady following", then I might think otherwise. I would just call that person a hobbyist that spreads knowledge and information about a certain field. But it's never just that, it seems.

• Are you particularly invested in any online influencers?

No, they're like celebrities to me.

• If an influencer came here, do you think this could be a welcoming place for them?

No, because for us to know they're an influencer in the first place, they'd have to make it known. If they use the same username as they do on their other social media platforms, then I have to wonder what their intentions are. If they used a different username, and never told anyone or put it in their bio, then we'd be none the wiser anyways. I think a lot of people that are active on forums are trying to "go back to the good 'ol days" and are fed up with social media, advertising, capitalism, etc. An influencer represents a lot of the things that, I think, melonland folks are sick of. (I am happy to be corrected on this!)

• Do you believe that becoming an influencer always sacrifices some authenticity?

Yes, if we're going by the definition of influencer that I think we are: Someone that is making a living off of their content and is working heavily with advertisers, sponsors, etc.

• Since the role of online creators has changed a lot in the recent decades, do you see a future where influencers may create freeform as they did in the past, back before people even knew it was a potential career path?

I'm unsure, because even in this post, the term "creator" and "influencer" becomes interchangeable, and I think the current ecosystem is tired of influencers.

• If someone wanted to encourage a lot of people to think about the things they value or some important thing that exists, how might they accomplish spreading that message without influencer marketing tactics? Would you consider there to be alternatives for what it accomplishes, or is it all-encompassing for that?

Eliminating the profit margin would accomplish this, I think. Once someone is making a profit off of something, it becomes impossible to know if they're doing XYZ for money or for passion or for other creative purposes.


This all sounds very negative from me, but I do think there's hope, and I don't want to be doom and gloom. Let's take an influencer and call them Dr. Pepper. Dr. Pepper makes some videos on making your own sodas at home and goes viral on her tiktok and youtube. Her channels become monetized and she gets paid to make content now. People now question her authenticity: Was her latest video talking smack about licorice as a flavor just ragebait so she could get a fat paycheck??

I think if Dr. Pepper ALSO put her content on a forum or personal website or something like that, one could definitely argue that she is prioritizing sharing her knowledge and passion with the world, assuming the forum and personal website aren't monetized. Others could argue that her forum and personal website are just another way to advertise to others and get them to check out her tiktok and youtube... I do think it would help though.

I think doing your best to be humble, resist selling out your values for a paycheck and doing your best to provide at least SOME of your passion without a paywall helps. What do yall think though? I hope I wasn't too pessimistic or doom and gloom  [/list][/list]

[Melooon]

We did have a bit of a discussion about this before in this thread (Does having a website make you an influencer?) - and what I learned in that thread was that people have quite specific and often negative ideas about what an influencer is exactly - I don't necessarily share those ideas, but I do understand them 

For example I would count anyone who is a consistent personality on the web, and who, in some outsized way, effects people's actions or choices via the material they put onto the web, to be an influencer. They can range in size from very large to quite small.

As for the questions here! - I do love a good Q&A thread 

What do you generally think of online influencers?
~ There are good ones and there are bad ones and most are in between! Some are more commercial, but that's nothing new, the world will always have sales people regardless of economics. Beyond that, there are many people who are both passionate and kind and help greatly within the community they serve while being influential!

What do you believe their role has been when it comes to the evolution of people's engagement with the Web?
~ By their nature quite vast! I count someone like LGR as an influencer and he play'ed a huge role on my and many peoples interest in retro tech, along with many others!

Are you particularly invested in any online influencers?
~ I would not say hugely invested; but again, people like LGR, Bernadette Banner, or Glen & Friends, are people I've been aware of for a long time and I've watched their lives change thorough their media over many years and I do care how they are getting along and what they are upto, even though they may never know me!

If an influencer came here, do you think this could be a welcoming place for them?
~ I would hope so! It's my wish for as wide a range of people to be welcome as is practical. Again though, thats in contrast to SeaSlugUFO because my definition of an influencer includes people who are not selling anything; that said, even if someone like MrBeast joined and was trying to pitch his burgers here; I think that would be really funny; and I'd hope we could all laugh about it and after a while he might relax and make a homepage too

Do you believe that becoming an influencer always sacrifices some authenticity?
~ No I don't. I do think that if you're charismatic and engaging, it can be easy to sway people for a while; history has plenty of examples of that. However the people who leave a lasting impact, the ones who truly influence the world, are the ones who are consistently authentic. Once you sacrifice authenticity then you sacrifice influence.

Since the role of online creators has changed a lot in the recent decades, do you see a future where influencers may create freeform as they did in the past, back before people even knew it was a potential career path?
~ I think we are headed for a future where the idea of an influencer is irrelevant because everyone is creating at some level. In that situation people are far less accepting of a passive form of media consumption and it becomes collaborative media. I believe when people create they start to think, and when they start to think they start to want to change things (for better or worse!); being freeform is a change you can choose in contrast to following a trend.

If someone wanted to encourage a lot of people to think about the things they value or some important thing that exists, how might they accomplish spreading that message without influencer marketing tactics? Would you consider there to be alternatives for what it accomplishes, or is it all-encompassing for that?
~ To my last answer  You can't tell people to think, but you can open the door for them and give them tools and encouragement to find their own way.


This was fun to answer; thanks for the topic and I'm really looking forward to seeing peoples responses! 

[Kallistero]

• If an influencer came here, do you think this could be a welcoming place for them?

No, because for us to know they're an influencer in the first place, they'd have to make it known. If they use the same username as they do on their other social media platforms, then I have to wonder what their intentions are. If they used a different username, and never told anyone or put it in their bio, then we'd be none the wiser anyways. I think a lot of people that are active on forums are trying to "go back to the good 'ol days" and are fed up with social media, advertising, capitalism, etc. An influencer represents a lot of the things that, I think, melonland folks are sick of. (I am happy to be corrected on this!)

What if this influencer was one who actively used their platform to try chipping away at problems with the surface Web (like Reject Convenience or Retro Tech Dreams)? Do you look cynically at videos where YouTubers bemoan what the Web has become? Or might there be particular types of influencers that you feel could be more welcome here? Could an influencer's core message change how welcome they might be, or do you think the very practice brings with it a culture that the space would steer itself away from?

Spoiler

Personally, when it comes to influencers complaining about the state of the Internet, I think a lot of people in general complain about a lot of things (like the state of the Web) without doing much about it. It's often because they feel like they can't or because they feel their skills & interests would do more good elsewhere. People have complaints, then they don't believe there's any alternative, then by the time they do see an alternative, they're too tied up to contribute a verse. Influencers are just people; they have limited capacity and varying beliefs. We're more active toward a particular belief, and I'm not sure that makes them deficient.

What we're doing can be seen as a form of activism, where a lot of people (including participants in a flawed system) will poke holes in that system, but fewer will go out & participate in activism, while even fewer will create alternatives & solutions to the bits & pieces that are ailing people 

[close]

[SeaSlugUFO]

What if this influencer was one who actively used their platform to try chipping away at problems with the surface Web (like Reject Convenience or Retro Tech Dreams)? Do you look cynically at videos where YouTubers bemoan what the Web has become? Or might there be particular types of influencers that you feel could be more welcome here? Could an influencer's core message change how welcome they might be, or do you think the very practice brings with it a culture that the space would steer itself away from?

Spoiler

Personally, when it comes to influencers complaining about the state of the Internet, I think a lot of people in general complain about a lot of things (like the state of the Web) without doing much about it. It's often because they feel like they can't or because they feel their skills & interests would do more good elsewhere. People have complaints, then they don't believe there's any alternative, then by the time they do see an alternative, they're too tied up to contribute a verse. Influencers are just people; they have limited capacity and varying beliefs. We're more active toward a particular belief, and I'm not sure that makes them deficient.

What we're doing can be seen as a form of activism, where a lot of people (including participants in a flawed system) will poke holes in that system, but fewer will go out & participate in activism, while even fewer will create alternatives & solutions to the bits & pieces that are ailing people 

[close]

I didn't realize I came off cynically, I apologize. My bias is that I'm really burnt out from personal usage of social media, my exposure to influencers, and the work I've done/am still doing with influencers, so that is probably seeping into my reply. I'd rather not get into specifics about my job though, so I'll humbly take the L and accept that I replied in a very cynical and blunt way, and should have proofread more or edited, and apologize.

[Kallistero]

I didn't realize I came off cynically, I apologize. My bias is that I'm really burnt out from personal usage of social media, my exposure to influencers, and the work I've done/am still doing with influencers, so that is probably seeping into my reply. I'd rather not get into specifics about my job though, so I'll humbly take the L and accept that I replied in a very cynical and blunt way, and should have proofread more or edited, and apologize.

You didn't do anything wrong! If it's colored by personal experience with influencer marketing, that's super valuable! Perhaps there's a certain type of person or voice one would use for professional influencer-based outreach. The general sentiment here might keep certain types of influencers from ever wanting to participate, while it may even attract certain others.

The old guard of content creators (the ones who were doing it before they knew you could make money off of it) probably share a lot of our complaints, and educational influencers seem to have more easily trusted intentions than their contemporaries. VSauce Michael seems like he could be right at home just about anywhere, but VSauce Michael isn't your average influencer 

[wolfkitty42]

Do you look cynically at videos where YouTubers bemoan what the Web has become?

Unfortunately, the state of the web and web revival is swiftly developing into a special interest 4 me. I am now obligated 2 watch many of these videos, potentially all of them!
That aside- I think it depends. I agree with previous points brought up about issues with influencers who create content 4 money essentially just being advertisers. I feel like this is a role that makes the web unhealthier. I especially find myself thinking of beauty influencers, and how trends surrounding makeup and style will often create insecurities and hurt people because their bodies don't adapt 2 a new hairstyle or lipstick color or cut of a shirt as easily. As well, I think the current skincare craze is a craze because of these advertisements. I think that with algorithms and websites that encourage addictive scrolling, it is very easy 2 suddenly find yourself deep in the midst of expensive FOMO because you don't have a skincare routine.

Outside of advertisers though, everyone is an influencer. Typing a comment? That's influencing. Influencers have roles in our communities IRL, or online, large-scale or small-scale. Like, I think it's seriously important 2 think about how we have influencers within our own communities. These people probably aren't advertising you anything. They are probably influencing the social standards, climate, and what and who is acceptable within the community. Maybe it's because they're talented, and make something a lot of people like. Or, they're fun 2 be around! Maybe they have a network of people who are their friends, and tend 2 support them more. I dunno. I'm rambling here!!! Overall I think what I am trying 2 get at is that conversations on this topic will inevitably be difficult because "influencer" is a broad term, and people might have pretty different definitions of it.

[Kallistero]

However the people who leave a lasting impact, the ones who truly influence the world, are the ones who are consistently authentic. Once you sacrifice authenticity then you sacrifice influence.

This bit is probably going to stick with me the most 

I think we are headed for a future where the idea of an influencer is irrelevant because everyone is creating at some level. In that situation people are far less accepting of a passive form of media consumption and it becomes collaborative media.

That's a vision I have for the future, too, but I also feel like it's something that has to be actively pursued to make happen. If there's to be more creation, people need to have the tools available to create, but when people do have the tools, they WILL create. That definitely happened back in the heyday of Flash games & animations. A lot of the people making those were kids & teens; only rarely were they industry animators, software professionals, or people with prior influence. The barrier to entry wasn't felt in quite the same way, so a lot of people entered that space with little besides a dream of what they wanted to make. It makes me believe that creation can really democratize if the tools for creation can be put in front of people. The puzzle is in providing those tools for people to create with, and that's a puzzle that I may pursue personally 

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

What if this influencer was one who actively used their platform to try chipping away at problems with the surface Web (like Reject Convenience or Retro Tech Dreams)? Do you look cynically at videos where YouTubers bemoan what the Web has become? Or might there be particular types of influencers that you feel could be more welcome here? Could an influencer's core message change how welcome they might be, or do you think the very practice brings with it a culture that the space would steer itself away from?

I don't look about it cynically, but I believe it is a mostly futile act - a bit like trying to empty an ocean with using an holey bucket, and I also believe that there are "influencers" on all sides and parties who know this. And these are the true cynics. (I suppose that most of the really successful "influencers" were somewhat developed at the drafting table; the people depicting these figures might be naive about it themself, but those who planned them were probably aware that they do not perpetuate change, but commodify the idea of change; the few who get "naturally" successful are likely to either surrender or get corrupted - the few who stick to it for long are somewhat tragical figures, as they do the same commodification, and need to go on doing this, if they want to stay successful, whet ever they want it or not).

I do believe that the whole logic behind the "influencer" or "prominence" culture is basically the thing that we need to overcome for any true advancement. Social capital is a form of power, and only if we overcome the very concept of powerful individuals or hegemonial groups, we have a chance to escape the vicious cycle of history, as accumulated power is bound to be abused at some point. The internet was once a promise into this direction, but it either could never fulfill it in the first place or was corrupted before it could redeem it. It could still play a role when it comes to moving society in the right direction, though - I'm sure that this is not entirely impossible. I'm pretty sure that it won't work out over the big, privately owned social-media platforms (like YT or Twitter) or those who try to emulate them (like Mastodon) - these are products of the hegemonial order, and can thus only replicate it.

[Melooon]

This all starts to slip into the realm of activism verses art. I've always advocated that the web revival is an act of art, not of activism. Art is something you create, and it expresses itself through its own creation; its values, meaning and goal are bound up in the physical form of the artwork.

You cannot express web revival ideas via social media influencing because thats missing the art. Influencing is closer to activism, where you take an idea and broadcast it in some way. When you try and combine those two things, what you get is white noise They cancel each other out because when you activise art it becomes a broadcast medium, you destroy its depth and you cut its lifespan.

@ThunderPerfectWitchcraft you make some reasonable points and I don't disagree; but I don't think this is a societal problem, its more the case that humanity can only evolve so fast. You have to make things for who people are now, limits and strengths alike. Someday if we survive long enough, humans might evolve into beings that can live up to the best of our ideals; but I suspect that by then we will be something very different and the things we fear now will seem as silly as seagulls fighting over a chip 

The case here is that homepages and the indie web is not meant to be a place of consensus; it's supposed to be in contrast to itself; thats what makes it independent media. We collaborate, and discuss and create tools because we share our contrasts as much as (if not more than) our similarities.

Outside of advertisers though, everyone is an influencer. Typing a comment? That's influencing.

I remember in my teens I had a bad habit of ending every question by deconstructing the universe into nothingness ~ you can do that but it does't get you very far and its not much fun There is a bound to the term influencer; and its worth discussing it within that bound! Not just for now, but also as a fragment for the future, so people in 10 or 20 years can understand what it felt like to be here at this time.

That definitely happened back in the heyday of Flash games & animations

Flash is such a funny example because it was VERY proprietary and expensive; you really had to do a lot of piracy to get Flash back in the day, and yet everyone did it. It was such a powerful cultural force that people who prob would never break the law in any way were rushing out to pirate it because they wanted to participate in the flash making culture.

As you say the were not told to do so by any personality; the saw the art that was being created and they wanted to be part of it too, and even years later, almost everyone who was there still feels a connection and a pull to that time. That's what art does!

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

This all starts to slip into the realm of activism verses art. I've always advocated that the web revival is an act of art, not of activism. Art is something you create, and it expresses itself through its own creation; its values, meaning and goal are bound up in the physical form of the artwork.

I often noticed in such debates that your art-definition is a rather confined one (this isn't meant to be pejorative - I hope I got the right term; I want to use the neutral one, without any negative overtones - this is sometimes complicated as a non-native-speaker ). Personally, I regard everything that exceeds the most rudimentary necessities of living as art. Earthing a cup, walking through a mountain-range, forming a parliament, saving stranded whales - this even goes, to some degree, d'accord with your definition: All of these things somewhat express themself through themself.

I don't want to say that your definition is incorrect - these are different ways to look at the world, but the distinction between art and activism is most subjective.

Also, I have the impression that the majority of people who join here do not necessarily search for good ways to express themself in an artistic way; escaping the status quo seems to be a much more prevalent wish. I'd even say that the web-revival ain't even activism for many of its members - instead, it sometimes looks to me like a subculture, where people have and create a website as a token of affinity to the community - similar to punks wearing patches on their jacket.

You cannot express web revival ideas via social media influencing because thats missing the art. Influencing is closer to activism, where you take an idea and broadcast it in some way. When you try and combine those two things, what you get is white noise They cancel each other out because when you activise art it becomes a broadcast medium, you destroy its depth and you cut its lifespan.

I'd say that this is rather a question of quality. I'd say that Picassos best painting had a political agenda, that would clearly go through as a form of activism. The art behind great activism is to make a statement that exceeds the issue at hands - such activist art can stay true for an eternity.

but I suspect that by then we will be something very different and the things we fear now will seem as silly as seagulls fighting over a chip

May it happen!

The case here is that homepages and the indie web is not meant to be a place of consensus; it's supposed to be in contrast to itself; thats what makes it independent media. We collaborate, and discuss and create tools because we share our contrasts as much as (if not more than) our similarities.

To be clear about this: My utopia isn't one where the individuality is overcome; the idea of turning humanity into some form of mold is nightmarish. But I deeply believe that we need more (as much as possible) equality to allow for individuality - as the mechanics of power (in the case of the modern digital world - algorithms, followers, and so on) always create a certain uniformity that restricts us in being what we want. The "old internet" was more democratic (and better) in this regard, and I believe that the "web revival" is a step into the right direction - but it sometimes seems to me that one of the problems is, that not only the internet did change - our whole society, and our thinking did, and that it might be not trivial to undo this.

[Melooon]

I often noticed in such debates that your art-definition is a rather confined one

When I'm talking about art I'm very much talking about it from a fine-art perspective; so your take here is fine! I agree that anything can be art; but anything doesn't necessarily become a Rothko When I say art, I'm usually talking about an intentional process that's deliberate, studied and curated; rather than a universal artfulness of existence.

the majority of people who join here do not necessarily search for good ways to express themself in an artistic way

That's never really been a concern. People will engage as much or as little as they wish, and in whatever way they wish. My goal has always been to get people excited about making things, regardless of their reason. I feel that the things you create express themselves; they are partly you, but also partly the time, the place, the material etc that they are made of. Artworks and homepages have their own reasons to exist

Picassos best painting had a political agenda

I would describe what you're calling quality, as a question of who leads; does the art lead or does the activism lead? If the activism leads, it can artful but really what you've got is advertising. If the art leads it can still contain activism, but the activism is there to build up the artwork.

that it might be not trivial to undo this.

I agree with all that except for the last line! I don't think things can be undone any more than you can uneat a mango. Things have to be acknowledged and you have to move on with them, not over them, or around them or backwards away from them. To bring all this back to the thread subject; that's one reason why I'm not "influencer" hostile; we cant have the old web back; the web includes influencers, and you and I too; and everyone has to get along 

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

I feel that the things you create express themselves; they are partly you, but also partly the time, the place, the material etc that they are made of. Artworks and homepages have their own reasons to exist

I can heavily agree to this!

a question of who leads

Well, this would work out to draw the difference - but this is again so subjective, that it stays at "everything goes" again in the end of the day, or not? Even for the single same person, what they might regard as artistic/political/comic/tragic/-and so on might change multiple times, maybe even within a single day. Things that I regarded as moving might sometimes seem to be as tactile as sledgehammer-blows to me, things that I once regarded as silently beautiful might appear as coward in hindsight. And both these assessments of the same work (and probably indefinite more) can be true at the same time.

I don't think things can be undone any more than you can uneat a mango.

At first, I wanted to write "impossible"; I thought it would sound to fatalistic, and changed it. This was a mistake - you are right with this.

When I'm talking about art I'm very much talking about it from a fine-art perspective; so your take here is fine!

I'm not sure if it is really only the fine-art perspective - if I think about Brecht & Eisler, or the last Documenta (which was a great scandal here - partly for touching the distinction between political art and activism, but clearly the most impressing exhibition I've seen yet). Apropos Documenta: Almost the whole output of Joseph Beuys seems to cycle around this in some way. Isn't the whole thing really subjective throughout?

but anything doesn't necessarily become a Rothko

Maybe it does?

[PurpleHello98]

I'd personally only welcome an influencer if they were here for the right reasons i.e. not trying to promote their social media or sell us anything. Which, if they still kept those channels open, I find unlikely. I don't hate all influencers, but I dislike the role as a whole and the culture. Especially the terms "content" and "creators"---even if my site has "content" and I'm a "creator" it's all so irreversably associated with modern social media for me that I hate those labels. I wish we could just go back to YouTubers, etc., being fun people to watch---not people who sell out so much. It's depressing and feels like it kind of ruins the platform. A couple of my favourite YouTubers have sponsorships and it's a small annoyance to skip the sponsorships, so if the videos are good enough I'll tolerate it, but still, it's all very annoying.

[...]
I would describe what you're calling quality, as a question of who leads; does the art lead or does the activism lead? If the activism leads, it can artful but really what you've got is advertising. If the art leads it can still contain activism, but the activism is there to build up the artwork.
[...]

I really like this point. It reminds me of what my British literature class (I LOVE THAT CLASS) is covering right now--the Neoclassical period and the leadup to the Romantic movement. Neoclassicists viewed literature either as a way to be witty and satirize others or as a way to teach morals, and the latter kind especially put teaching way ahead of art and was very boring. That wasn't helped by the fact that they idolized Greco-Roman poetical form and scorned anything that diverged even a little, but that's neither here nor there. Romanticists viewed the art aspect as equally, if not more, important.

I think a lot of art, whether that be paintings, literature, music, or whatever, has teaching as a priority, but art should also be prioritized. There are a lot of books with really strong moral messages, like Jane Eyre for example, that are really amazing and that I personally love, but they also have a lot of creativity. But I'd argue that one can also try and prioritize a message and the art equally and have good results, instead of just making something for the art and having a message to build it up, since often a social or moral message is the core of a work, and the art, however good it may be, is built around that yet the artist still takes great care with regard to it.

[starbreaker]

What do you generally think of online influencers?

I generally don't think of them.

What do you believe their role has been when it comes to the evolution of people's engagement with the Web?

I think they've made the web less participatory and democratic, and their presence has done a lot to turn the Web into cable TV with a comments section.

Are you particularly invested in any online influencers?

Hell no.

If an influencer came here, do you think this could be a welcoming place for them?

If I ran MelonLand, I'd yeet "influencers" into the cold evernight of interstellar space.
However, this isn't my space, so whether MelonLand proves welcoming to influencers isn't my call.

Do you believe that becoming an influencer always sacrifices some authenticity?

An influencer is nothing but an advertiser or propagandist.
Authenticity is inimical to the work they do.

Since the role of online creators has changed a lot in the recent decades, do you see a future where influencers may create freeform as they did in the past, back before people even knew it was a potential career path?

Not if they want to make a career of it.

If someone wanted to encourage a lot of people to think about the things they value or some important thing that exists, how might they accomplish spreading that message without influencer marketing tactics? Would you consider there to be alternatives for what it accomplishes, or is it all-encompassing for that?

I'd suggest that they lead by example. Better yet, don't try to lead. Just do your own thing in public and let people decide for themselves if they want to do the same.