Just reading the first paragraph of the Grazia piece. Wow, apparently it's awful to think influencers are shit...
She sets up a strawman argument as well (being critical of the shit some influencers pull off apparently is the same as condoning hurling abuse at them).
Having said that, I'm only here for the BS from Jack Monroe and the people here are fun. I don't know about any other threads. I don't care about life-style influencers trying to sell me some sponsored make-up pallet or throw for my sofa, so I don't follow any. I've never seen the appeal in that, but I know many do. (Also, being an influencer would be my worst nightmare, I would hate having to whore or my private life for money like that, monetize the things that are just fun or for my own enjoyment. Really can't see the appeal)
I don't agree with abuse directed at people in their face, in their comments or in DMs. That's horrible whether you are a musician, politician, scientist, influencer or whatever. But what the writer does is conflating targeted abuse with people calling bullshit on some of the nonsense some influencers peddle.
She also argues:"Or perhaps everyone that uses Tattle should live by the same contract of transparency and ‘fair game’ that they expect from influencers and use their real names, addresses and photos if they want to use the site"
Well I'm not online rattling my tip jar, dropping hints of being poor and ill while splashing out on sideboards, or lying about 20hr works days so people get a pity Patreon subscription.
Overall, it's a strange piece that starts with someone moping about a dating profile from a man who didn't like influencers, then generalising criticism on influencers as if it's just like shooting abuse at someone, and ends again with moping about that dating profile.