The Celebrity Promo Trap

in steemit •  last year


source

I've been around the platform for quite some time now. By now, I consider Steemit much like a community that builds families. I cheered, argued, debated and got to know some members on a deeper level. It is my belief that this kind of interaction is essential for any healthy relationship whether it has to do with the "real" or online world. This approach of mine also helps to separate the weeds from the chaff. Perhaps most importantly, it enables real bonding — the glue that holds any community together.

When many celebrities came aboard on Steemit, I felt the need to debate their ideas. Their approach seemed, to say the least, ...off. There was a sense of charlatanism and superficiality in every sentence. No real arguments, no objective analysis. Skin-deep approach with plenty of rhetorics seemed to do the trick for the cheering masses. They were overwhelmed by the cashflow and they expressed this excitement about Steemit passionately.

If we wanted to make Steemit look like a scam, really we couldn't have accomplished it better. Fast & Money is always a bad combination for any business when it comes to promotion. It literally raises all the possible flags to most "serious" people's minds. If its too good to be true, it probably ain't.

I understand that exposure is vital for any idea to grow — hence why some people with thousands of fans outside of Steemit got heavily rewarded. Most of them had a libertarian approach that went against the current status quo and rhymed (at least superficially) with the philosophy of the platform. Ideas of decentralization and independence were heavily embraced in their posts. The investment on them came short though. Value was not properly actualized.

Celebrities or not, people get spoiled quite fast. Once a high standard is set, one can only long for higher rewards, not lower. Being overpaid from day one with mediocre and repetitive posts doesn't leave much room for growth. Hence, when a storm eventually broke, they couldn't handle the shake.

Their ideological presence had no solid foundation other than what they got served for free — money. A brief fluctuation in price caused them to leave immediately. Their fans vanished as fast as they appeared. This pattern is not endemic to Steemit. It is observed everywhere in nature whether we are dealing with cats or spoiled brats.

Although common sense dictates that a celebrity would promote the platform positively, this is not always true. Steemit has a different psychological architecture due to the monetary reward system. A celebrity milking the rewards pool will soon leave the followers drooling. They will too try to do the same and fail. Over-excitement becomes bitter disappointment lightening-fast when it comes to your average groupie's psychology.


In order to understand why this happens, we need to properly examine the nature of the groupie. A person who follows a celebrity lacks first and foremost critical aspects of individuality. Their identity, heck, their whole world, hangs around the celebrity persona.

If their idol aspires to an idea, then their entire life revolves around them. If the celebrity gets disappointed, the effect ripples through them thus affecting the entire ecosystem. What was once organic growth that could spread beyond a narrow community becomes a poisonous infection. What was a good overblown excitement and promo talk to a friend becomes negative and bitter propaganda. We have a saying in my country that goes like this "It takes 100 good deeds to erase 1 bad". Humans can indeed be very unforgiving, especially when it comes the internet.

A celebrity is first and foremost an empty shell. Whether they are politicians, actors, models or anything else is irrelevant. A person becomes popular when they are continuously presented as generic and as sensational as possible. This is the only way to connect virally.

Finding the unique aspects that bind the masses together and then repeating the shit out of them becomes a necessity. This is the reason we often hear celebrities talk about the same concepts that revolve around trust, love, compassion and freedom. Add these magical words to any idea and you can even sell ice-cubes to an eskimo.

Thing is, celebrities know this. Having been around for quite sometime they know the tricks to keep their audience interested and excited. They know how to attract the biggest idiots that will make the most fuss — those that will attract even more idiots and consequently, revenue.

Whether we are dealing with a political party or a model, the weakest and most desperate of all groupies will create the biggest momentum. You might be wondering why you see sometimes the stupidest newsletters. Just know that they are not selling to you but rather to the fellow that is not so ...bright.

Celebrity groupies are not ideal for content creation, the heart and soul of Steemit. They are dependent on others to even exist. This is why after all why they are groupies. What they know and what they understand is what the leader propagates. They rarely have the necessary skills or motivation to form their own ideas. They had no real value to begin with and so they became parasitic.


source

I believe that Steemit needs first and foremost content creators that also like to interact with the community. I am extremely proud of this platform and this is why I am so critical. It is understandable that the growth will be slow but this is a good thing.

Celebrities can be a huge gamble. On the other hand, strong content creators that see their rewards slowly increasing based on effort and commitment, will be more likely to stick around than (sh)ill-spoiled celebrities. Content creators are also the ones that can demonstrate their hard-earned progress to others. The very fact that their experience is a demonstrable challenge (not-for-everyone mentality), will attract the right people that can give Steemit the right momentum and credibility.


Growing fast is almost never sustainable anywhere in nature. Evolution has employed specific mechanisms around us that work time after time again for billions of years now. Much like everything strong and long-lasting, Steemit can become antifragile if we nurture it properly. It can even withstand a major cryptocurrency shakedown due to the fact that it is the only currency with a solid product. It is understandable that the crypto community is packed with short-term speculators — hence the similarities in the celebrity pump and dump mentality. Nonetheless, if we are to make a dent into the current crypto-sphere we would need to drastically change the way upon we are promoted. Celebrities shouldn't be attracted by the money we give, but rather the people we can provide.







Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Articles like this are much more valuable for the platform than the presence of celebrities. But Ashton Kutcher on Steemit would not hurt :).

·

thank you. I sense a "chikoupaouaouo" moment from your part :)

Celebs are like Pharaohs of old sitting pretty on their pyramids and slaves, I quickly lost interest in worshipping celebs when I started questioning the world

·

similar story here.

Hey @kyriacos! Your article hits on several important issues for the Steemit community.

  1. Community Image - How do people who just want money impact the overall image of the Steemit community? In general they will leave a poor taste in peoples mouths as they come and go, wanting more than they are willing to give.
  2. Delayed Gratification - Are people willing to serve first, and be rewarded second? Our articles should serve our audience, not serve ourselves. If a "celebrity" has been serving their audience well, and they can do the same for the Steemit community, I do not have any objections with them joining our community.
  3. Sustainable Growth - Are people willing to develop the relationships needed to have influence? New users, such as myself, will tend to think that overnight success is not only possible, not normal and expected. When social media removes the social elements of society, we are in serious trouble. We need to realize we have to make time and effort to develop relationships so that we can have sustainable and healthy growth.
·

Excellent comment. Couldn't agree more.

·
·

Great comment. It really summarizes the article of @kyriacos!
Awesome article as well ;)

·
·
·

thank you man

"Celebrities shouldn't be attracted by the money we give, but rather the people we can provide." Very well put, @kyriacos.

I do a fair bit of work in social media and online advertising these days and i would hate for celebrities and "influencers" to be the focus of steemit's marketing strategy. With the right amount of money, they will promote anything. Just look at the Fyre Festival and how quickly that descended into a farce.

You make some excellent points. My favourite one is here:

Their ideological presence had no solid foundation other than what they got served for free — money. A brief fluctuation in price caused them to leave immediately.

I'm sure there are people out there who have big followings who might understand the potential of something like Steemit. If they truly "get it" they will not abandon ship when things get tough.

They will likely not be true celebrities as such - I don't think those kind of people need to come on to a new platform until it is already mainstream.

We should therefore concentrate on the kind of people who are more appropriate.

·

couldn't have said it better myself

Yeh it's a tough one, I would like to see celebrities coming in at a slow pace but also having artists, proper musicians, writers and people who really add to this site. Unfortunately how could we ever control this and we don't want to control it really. But I dont know maybe if there are measures in place whatever they may be in the future to guard against some of the negative aspects then this place will thrive well.

·

time will only tell. for now we can only be vigilant.

Once a high standard is set, one can only long for higher rewards, not lower.

This is true for almost every member. I've had many come to me and say "my first post was rewarded x posting rewards, why the others so much lower??"

I believe that Steemit needs first and foremost content creators that also like to interact with the community.

Absolutely this. Many have asked me why I don't promote Steemit so much on youtube/twitter and waste time on Twitch, but I feel the streamers there are hands down some of the best to communicate with their audience. Not sure if its because of the only gateway being the live chat compared to youtube's spam of comments filled with 50% trolls or other sites where the audience doesn't get much connection with their "celebrity". This often depends on how big of a celebrity they are or how big they see themselves to be, this is also very different for many.

I know youtubers and streamers who have subs in the thousands yet take the time to interact with their audience and base a lot of their content around them while there are others who think tens of thousands are good enough for them not to waste time on them or maybe even have an assistance do all the work pretending to be them.

That difference can also play a big role in what you were talking about the celebrities that know their audience and abuse them knowing they don't know any better to believe them, some celebrities abuse it more than others while possibly being a complete hypocrite about the content they preach. It all comes down to the big Fake vs. Real which is being bent and abused so much in the world lately it can make it confusing to the best of us.

A few days ago I stumbled upon a video about instagrammers using fake weights to try and get that extra fame and attention. There are no boundaries on greed or integrity in the world anymore, I hope we as a community will be more careful with how we spread our value along this time around but I am sure that with a bigger user-base and a delay in posting rewards being paid out it will do much better than before!

Great post, btw. I might've gone a bit offtrack with my comment.

·

funny, I was just about to add a comment to this and see that @michellectv beat me to it! I was going to add that even as our YouTube channel was approaching 100,000 subs, we still took the time to respond to comments as best we could, especially if they were meaningful ones. Of course, at that level it does get increasingly more difficult, but it's still important to stay humble and show appreciation to those who helped get you there in the first place. Plus, it's a two way street as some of our best fans were also a great source of knowledge, inspiration, and insight as well.

·

Excellent response, really! I would add that a) content is crucial, but equally important is the quality of engagement from followers rather than quantity that matters most... and b) having big numbers (unless it's in the multi-millions) really doesn't amount to much on many social platforms anymore because most followers/subscribers no longer receive notifications (e.g. YT, Twitter, FB pages)...I could also add the issue of bots to this list... they can be beneficial until they become inauthentic, spammy pariahs (e.g. Instagram).

·

Definitely on track because really, this is all what has comes down to. People simply got bored of the old way of following. They need engagement. Real comments, Real interaction. The "ice cold" mode of the author being disengaged for more 'prestige' doesn't work. It looks duchy. If you are that busy to not be able to interact with those who support you then you shouldn't be earning that much to begin with.

I think Steemit can take this REAL value, human interaction, the most valuable asset along with the content and monetize the shit out of it. This is what it all comes down to.

·
·

"I think Steemit can take this REAL value, human interaction, the most valuable asset along with the content and monetize the shit out of it. This is what it all comes down to."

Yes.

·
·
·

Let's become antifragile, Steemit!

Taleb would definitely like that you need to have "skin in the game" aka Steem Power in order to benefit properly from the platform.

Would it go against your entire article if Taleb started posting here instead of medium?

Eventually high-profile, quality content creators will start to migrate to steemit (sorry, medium).

I'm thinking if people like Taleb, Sam Harris maybe Tim Ferris or similarly-statured public thinkers/intellectuals started blogs here, I think that would be a good thing. Maybe the leaders within each of the communities created around those people would also become bigger fish on steemit?

Maybe creating steemit wealth within that community instead of focused on the main person is possible?

I certainly agree with the main thrust of your post, but I also don't want to scare off every person with a following. The individual communities that could be created within steemit could benefit everyone. Maybe we just need to not shower them with upvotes right away? Make them earn their stripes?

I don't know what the right answer is, but it's certainly worth thinking about as steemit continues to grow.

Thanks for your posts! I've really been enjoying them. You're one of the reasons I'm making steemit my first stop online these days.

·

Very thoughtful comment! I am also thinking that they will be valuable IF they get to enjoy with the rest. The point here is to get the RIGHT celebrities.

·
·

Yes, the ones that understand the platform and are looking to add value and share it with their community. Not the ones looking to milk their followers for more money. I think we're on the same page.

"Celebrity groupies are not ideal for content creation, the heart and soul of Steemit. They are dependent on others to even exist"

But couldn't you say the same about the non-celebrity content creators here though? I mean, monetary value or not, people publish largely for notoriety, if they didn't they'd just write the stuff down and hide it in a drawer somewhere.

It's the engaging kind of content creator-cum-interactors that you refer to here that's needed, in order for Steemit to thrive, and I don't necessarily think being a celebrity nor being only interested in the financial benefits of the activity precludes someone from filling that role. The popularity of Reddit's AMAs is one example that springs to mind - most everyone participating is shilling for something or another, but they pay for it with their time and their willingness to interact beyond a cursory level.

·

But couldn't you say the same about the non-celebrity content creators here though? I mean, monetary value or not, people publish largely for notoriety, if they didn't they'd just write the stuff down and hide it in a drawer somewhere.

The difference is that those authors try to show. The "effort" factor is huge. Followers know this. If they see a content creator that tries over a period of time and gets only some rewards while another earns thousands by just popping in the platform, then this creates the false impression about what the platform is all about.

It's the engaging kind of content creator-cum-interactors that you refer to here that's needed, in order for Steemit to thrive, and I don't necessarily think being a celebrity nor being only interested in the financial benefits of the activity precludes someone from filling that role.

Celebrities don't even bother to do that. They rather separate themselves from the crowd. This also has been demonstrated here from a few celebrities.

The popularity of Reddit's AMAs is one example that springs to mind - most everyone participating is shilling for something or another, but they pay for it with their time and their willingness to interact beyond a cursory level.

Exactly.

·

LOL I do have boxes of stuff I've written and never shown anyone. I don't publish for notoriety, but to learn. The value in comments to me is criticism. I'm rarely wrong, because as soon as I find out I am, I change my mind.

I need people to tell me when I'm wrong, so that I can get right. That's a lot of why I write posts. So I am just as dependent on people as any celebrity, but, I think, for all the right reasons.

One of the greatest potentials of Steemit is to break the Celebrity model. When all the commenters receive some benefit from their comment, the community is strengthened. Concentration of wealth in one party is a failed paradigm, but it is the way of the world nonetheless, because Steemit just got here, and it isn't completely jiggered properly yet.

On the Alaskan island where I grew up, the Chief held a potluck to share out the wealth of the tribe before all the fish started stinking. Ostensibly the Chief owned all the fish, but fish aren't a very durable means of storing value, and this forces equity sharing.

Steemit can capitalize on that concept, and is. There remains a problem that does need to be addressed, though. The Chief couldn't give a brave he thought was leering at his squaw a -fish. He could give him less fish than others, or no fish, but he couldn't downvote him.

That's a change Steemit needs to make, because it's gonna cause a whole slew of problems, and preclude broad adoption in the long run.

So, not everyone seeks adulation, and celebrity is the enemy of equity. Steemit can be a cure, by promoting an more egalitarian sharing of the value of content.

This demotes the Chief, but still shares the fish.

Some very interesting posts. The celebrities are a gamble. The groupies that get attracted purely due to celebrities can be a problem, in the ways you describe above.

On the other hand, celebrities increase the visibility of the platform even to those who are not groupies, but rather just have an interest for some other reason.

·

Visibility alone though doesn't quite cut it. We saw this for over a year now. Like I said, if they get disappointed they are more likely to spread negative rumors.

This is exactly the kind of content that should provide that "anitifragility".

I have a feeling that, aside from the US President, most celebrities are far too busy to concern themselves with curating their own Social Media feeds to create any long term following here.

And while the community needs to be open and inclusive, the short-attention span of most celebrities (and their minions) will weed them out.

Sort of like the Darwin Awards for crypto.

Will Steemit ultimately become the crypto-based, intellectual equivalent of Ayn Rand's "Galt's Gulch"?

·

I actually think that we tend to give a lot of celebrities too little credit when it comes to their cognitive capacity and organisational ability.

I do agree about the minions, though.

·

is up to us. Time will only tell

You actually swung my opinion on this issue, great post

·

glad to have

Thanks for this article @kyriacos. If a celebrity joins and creates unique content and invest time in @steemit thats great for the communinty and adds to the @steem cryptocurrency exposure. However they should be ready to interact not just use it as a twitter extra. Upvoted.

·

indeed

·
·

Thanks. Following you. Look foward to more interesting viewpoints. Follow me :-)

"Celebrities shouldn't be attracted from the money we give, but rather the people we can provide."

Exactly! Very thoughtful and articulate post thanks!

I agree and feel like this is an amazing stage and community... thanks for your post! I AM SOOOO following you!!

·

thank you

Solid points you have there, good job on that. But I have to disagree with a certain detail:
Not all groupies are 'not very bright'. Stephen Hawking has groupies and they're likely theoratical physicists, not school dropouts. Meanwhile some of those school dropouts will be very resistant to group mentality. And I'm not talking about the genius ones.
It's not a question of IQ, but rather of personality, is all I wanted to say. ;)

·

Actually most groupies of Stephen Hawking know nothing about his theories. They like the cool graphics and pop-science on tv that is behind his theories. :)

·
·

I don't know. If you define a groupie as someone who's world centers around a person, then in such a case, you'd have to understand the theory. Someone may be a huge fan of popular science, but would that someone really care if its Stephen Hawking on tv or Bill Nye? To the point of being a groupie?
I see your point, but I remain sceptical.

·
·
·

Someone may be a huge fan of popular science, but would that someone really care if its Stephen Hawking on tv or Bill Nye? To the point of being a groupie?

Yes, and it has become a massive problem. People just cheer the idea of science knowing very little about what is going behind the scenes. Science, unfortunately, is the new meme. Heck, most advances of space science (the most popular one) comes directly from military funding. People cheer for Star-trek like dreams while the drones bomb the shit out of people somewhere far far away. Tragic really.

·
·
·
·

Ah, well, most significant advances in everything come from military funding since probably the 19th century. Be it space science, surgery or the basis of the internet.

The sad part isnt that the military is funding technological progress, that's probably the best part of the military budget. The sad part is, how easy it is to twist reality about what these advances are used for. Even to the point of making people cheer for the actual bombing.
But that's not groupie-ism, just plain old propaganda and disinformation.

·
·
·
·
·

Ah, well, most significant advances in everything come from military funding since probably the 19th century. Be it space science, surgery or the basis of the internet.

agree 1000% . Hitler did the same thing. Ancient Egyptians pushed medicine centuries ahead by operating on conscious slaves. I have a question for you. Would you look yourself in the mirror and say it was worth it? If so, for what "ultimate" purpose?

The sad part isnt that the military is funding technological progress, that's probably the best part of the military budget. The sad part is, how easy it is to twist reality about what these advances are used for. Even to the point of making people cheer for the actual bombing.
But that's not groupie-ism, just plain old propaganda and disinformation.

But this is what happens exactly.

Check this out:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/neil-degrasse-tyson-us-vs-china-militarised-space-race-would-spur-innovation-1502945

·
·
·
·
·
·

I would say that you are mixing up two distinct or at least distinguishable things.

While wars certainly sucked, doctors figured out how to amputate without killing. Was it "worth" the wars? Were your examples "worth it"? No, of course not. That's like saying that drone bombing a wedding to kill one guy was worth it. Maliciousness married to lunacy.

The development of penicillin on the other hand, while happening during WWII, would have been funded by the military without WWII as well, simply to have an advantage.
So is throwing money at medical advancements (or others) for a military advantage worth it? Yes! It could be done through a civilian agency of course, but it wont be. You dont get votes for that.

So is space advancement worth a military space race? Certainly. And not just for techie reasons. The very real threat of complete annihilation by asteroid certainly isnt scaring anyone into space travel. If China can, good on them.

The point is: the creation of the technology is not the problem. It's the people applying it.
Or to turn the question upside down in a rather unfair way: Would you prefer penicilin, space travel, the internet. etc. would not exist just because they were funded by the military?

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

So is space advancement worth a military space race? Certainly. And not just for techie reasons. The very real threat of complete annihilation by asteroid certainly isnt scaring anyone into space travel. If China can, good on them.

The last space race ended almost causing a nuclear war between Russian and USA. It was so close that it was prevented from the disobedience of one guy to push THE button. Sure, asteroids are dangerous but there are far greater dangers here on earth.

Or to turn the question upside down in a rather unfair way: Would you prefer penicilin, space travel, the internet. etc. would not exist just because they were funded by the military?

They would eventually come to existence whether they were sponsored from the military or not. I made this argument in an earlier post. Science progresses in small steps. If it wasn't for Einstein then another guy would fill in. If it wasn't for the military the funds that push the research would generate similar outcomes.

Do you think this applies to a subset of Steemit-local, home-brewed "celebrities" as well?

·

It will definitely ring a bell to an outsider seeing the same people trending over and over again

Very good meaningful post. Of course, we need numbers and quality content and also the ability to recognize a good opportunity that we can each contribute to building and benefiting from-not just a flash in the pan commitment.

·

Dear kyriacos....I totally agreed with your point on "Their ideological presence had no solid foundation other than what they got served for free — money. A brief fluctuation in price caused them to leave immediately. Their fans vanished as fast as they appeared. This pattern is not endemic to Steemit. It is observed everywhere in nature whether we are dealing with cats or spoiled brats."
Nice....post....keep it up...my friend

·

I will. thank you.

·
·

you are welcome....my friend...

Steem is and will continue to be the next best thing in social media...everyone will want to be part of the success story...keep shining steem...thanks for sharing

·

Exceptionally good post that covers some of the really important dynamics here at Steemit. I'm a new user and I already see a huge difference in the quality and diversity of content here vs the other social media sites. I've taken a serious amount of time getting to know the platform and to connect with like minded people and that's the beauty of it. I think a blatant fan club mentality just wouldn't be the same as a connected thinking community. Thanks for helping me to become more aware of what's working well here, upvoted and following you.

·

Glad you enjoyed the article man

Interesting point of view... and you actually convinced me. I totally agree quality is a better solid base than just numbers being produced by followers. If we focus on the quality of the community numbers will just follow. Upvoted and followed

·

glad you agree man.thank you

Couldn't agree more! =D!

Your a steemit god

·

now that's a first :)

Yes, keep Steemit as slow growing. Roots grow deep that way. Celebrates? Well that reminds me of Kathy Griffin.

Growing fast is almost never sustainable anywhere in nature.

You've got invasive species in nature though. And they are doing just fine. The are nature too.

Are you hoping that steemit stay's small?

I edited to add something.

·

Let's take locusts which are one of the most invasive species. Their attacks last only a few days and they all end up dead after mating. Very short life cycle.

I am hoping steemit to grow, grow massively, but the best way is to do it slowly.

·
·

I was more thinking of plant species but never mind:)

I would like to see steemit grow slowly too, but there is no way of controlling stuff, if or when the masses start to join. There are more people voicing other concerns about when the masses join. But I don't think there is an awful lot 'you' can do.

Thanks for the reply.

·
·
·

yea. just putting my thoughts out there.

Congratulations @kyriacos! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of posts published

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honnor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

If you want to support the SteemitBoard project, your upvote for this notification is welcome!

Great post @kyriacos.

I wonder when the next tranche of 'celebs' will come along?

Anytime soon, would be my guess, now that Steem is pumping.

I've stocked up on brown paper bags in preparation.

·

I will be waiting. Most of the time they can't last long after they see the money flow. It's just sad so many rewards getting wasted when they could be allocated to average users for more motivation.

·
·

I agree. It does seem as though a disproportionate share of pool rewards were allocated towards 'celeb' endorsed piecemeal contributions.

A great idea who's time has come, doesn't need this kind of tacky endorsement.

There is a raft of creative talent here on Steemit, and I found it pretty sad that reality T.V level offerings were making bank, when lovingly crafted works of passion, from uniquely gifted individuals were falling by the wayside.

Hopefully we're past all that now though.

One can live in hope.

·
·
·

yeap. it looks like we are headed for clearer waters

It is a good story. But also, people need money to live.
This is a pretty serious story.

Functionally, celebrities get away with vastly lower quality content. Many of their "contributions" would be utterly ignored if, for example, I posted them. It will be interesting to see what happens as we see celebrities (or, more likely, their PR employees) testing the waters on the platform.

When it comes to convincing others the platform is not a scam, I have had good luck emphasizing that:

  1. You do not have to put money in.
  2. You are not paid by any real entity, but rather a decentralized community - your payments comes from the crowd-sentiment which supports the value of Steem.

Still, places like Tsu have muddied the waters a bit. We'll have to work harder to promote, but that does give us early adopters a head start!

·

Indeed. Here is where I believe good content creators can create value and attract more people, much more than celebrities. After all, people who do want to engage in a more "quality" matter don't fall for the celebrity meme.

I appreciate post like this . that are addressing celebrity aspect,and neg. effects of herd mentality. and that push back at the status quo!
namaste!

thank you @kyriacos food for thought.

·

thank you

I like stuff like this it makes you think in a different way

·

thank you man. glad you liked it.

Great article, it seems like the Celebs want to leave us behind and believe that the "Dark Side" has better options and more popularity for them. That Narrative is changing quickly now!

This post received a 63% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @acidyo! For more information on @randowhale click here!

·

darn! :D

celebrities are more like crypto currencies :P

·

lol :)

Great post and very good thoughts.

·

thank you. appreciated.

*wheat from the chaff. the weeds can go with the chaff no problem, we'll just compost it, but we need that wheat taken out so we can make bread.