KLOUT Is Ceasing Operations
I am about as nerdy as it gets when it comes to research methodology. And the idea of measuring my clout on social media is an interesting problem. So when I heard that Klout was going to end its infamous Score service and other operations, I was mildly curious about my score. To be frank, I knew it wouldn't be high; as far as I know, only 1 person follows my blog, and occasionally a relative is interested in seeing my selection of a political cartoon (not even really my own effort). I limit my Facebook friends to relatives and one college friend; I do have a list of over 20 "friend" invitations, mostly attracted to my comments on political topics. [Not to mention one nephew who has friended and defriended me twice, and the last time I checked he was blocking me. Not exactly sure what that's about because we haven't messaged or emailed in years, even during the brief periods he "friended me"; I think I've seen him once over the past decade, at my Dad's funeral Mass. But politically he is/was a "progressive", so we have little in common.] The last time I checked, I had maybe 72 followers on Twitter, nearly all of whom seem to be attracted to my content. Actually, that's a recent improvement because over a long period of my 5 years on Twitter I seemed to be range-bound at around 30 followers. The last time I checked, no friends and relatives.Given the fact that I have an unconventional point of view (and sometimes engage in colorful language with opposing Twitter trolls and users), I'm not really surprised that my followers are limited. And even among libertarians, I have major differences: I'm pro-life, I oppose Ron Paul's attack on "welfare state" libertarianism and opposition to trade treaties; I was against Gary Johnson's position to compel bakers to bake Nazi cakes, I'm pro-intellectual property, and despite my position against slavery, I oppose Lincoln's unprovoked invasion of seceded Southern states as no more ethical than Redcoat oppression during the Revolutionary War. I don't think I've been cited by a single libertarian I know. I admit it would be nice to be acknowledged; it would also be nice if I had thousands of followers to my social media feeds. But I really don't mind standing different, on my principles.
I almost get a kick out of getting flamed by progressives and Trumpkins. Being called a "racist"? Seriously? OLL is located in a southwest San Antonio barrio. My best friend was a Latino education major. I did my only joint research with a Taiwanese immigrant who became a professor at Alaska-Anchorage; in fact, I wrote a letter supporting her tenure application. Two male black DBA's have served as job references. I've gone on dates with black ladies and Latinas. I have ethnically-mixed grandnephews and grandnieces. I've had black, Latino, and female bosses. My biggest professional friends in my post-academic period are a Jew and a Hindu, who strongly disagree with my pro-life views. I don't really feel the need to defend myself; I'm really amused by the people who don't even know me using that word simply because we don't share the same political opinions. The fact that I disagree with Obama has zero to do with his skin color; I'm equally contemptuous of all "progressives", regardless of their appearance.
So the fact that my Klout score sucks (and may be even worsening since I first checked) doesn't surprise me or alarm me. I don't really need the social approval of others; I'm not going to change my principled opinion to win over more followers. But I think measuring one's influence goes beyond whatever factors go into the score. For example, I've written some wildly popular tweets despite the fact hardly anyone knows me. I've written reply tweets that have attracted hundreds of impressions/views. In some cases on Facebook, I basically reframed the OP's original point, and it went viral (in a limited sense). For example, in one case, a libertarian group cited a progressive meme about capitalism and food waste (vs. given to the poor). Among other things, I mentioned regulations and legal liability; I also pointed out that the feds also dump "illegal" marketable raw milk or cherry harvests exceeding quotas. I got reactions like "Good point! I didn't think of that." (I could have also pointed out trial lawyers are a key "progressive" constituency, and you have "progressive" politicians criminalizing private sector feeding or sheltering the homeless. I sometimes have a way of saying things that provoke thought and interest. To give a simple example from today's Twitter, I didn't even attach to a trending hashtag and picked up nearly 300 impressions on a tweet including the line I wouldn't trust Trump with my library card, never mind my country. And that happened without a single like or retweet. In my view, this is evidence of a certain degree of influence. It's more qualitative than quantitative.
Finally, in terms of methodology issues, Dan Mitchell, a fellow libertarian, recently wrote a piece about various political categorization methods and discussed in general terms how he came out. This is a geeky thing that directly relates to my own research interests, and I may follow up on this in future work.
Wrestling Opinion Update
As I've mentioned in past posts on this recurring segment, I'm not really interested so much in the scripted wrestling action as the storylines. There was an excellent recent HBO film on wrestling legend Andre the Giant. There was an intrinsic problem in booking Andre the Giant. A 7-foot-plus, 530-lb. athlete simply didn't have any true peers, so how could you ever book him into the championship belt? People aren't interested in seeing a life-long tenure of championship squash matches. Yes, the David vs. Goliath story is obvious, but you damage Andre's brand if any little pipsqueak can be booked into beating him. However, I did like the twist WCW pulled in how to book the unbeatable Goldberg. Bret Hart was wearing a hidden metal garbage can lid when Goldberg tried to exercise his signature spear move.One of the points, of course, is how to book the similarly dominant Braun Strowman, who is probably the most agile and talented big man WWE has ever pushed. Now I have to be candid here and admit my favorite character is Kevin Owens. But the way they book Strowman, Owens is treated like a jobber. One of Strowman's gimmicks right now is to run around the ring and bulldoze other wrestlers. Owens is little more than a deer dazzled by headlights as Strowman. One of these days they have to use Strowman's aggression against him, like Owens pulls off a "green mist" blinding incident or Owens is wearing the ring bell in his attire.
There are rumors of another Owens-Zahn split and feud. Oh, God, no. Been there, done that. It's now as boring as hell. It may sound inevitable since their recent alliance, but don't do it.
They now have a grossly inexperienced babyface former MMA champion Ronda Rousey booked into a championship match with Nia Jax, a babyface 6-foot champion. I'm not the first guy to point this out, but it's obvious: the feud just doesn't make sense. Nia initiated the challenge on her own for God knows what reason: she likes to give rookies opportunities? I can only hope that there's some devious plot to turn Jax heel. But I really don't see the logic of either woman losing; Jax's reign would be little more than a cameo. It would really be different say, if Jax resented Rousey's instant success without having to pay her dues in NXT, etc. Or if Nia Jax went rogue and flattened Natalia Hart, Ronda's supposed friend/mentor. Or Jax and Rousey were paired in a tag team match, and Rousey mistakenly hits Jax in a strike move. The way I would have probably booked Rousey was to have Hart upset by Rousey's unsolicited help because as "the best that ever was, is, and ever will be" Hart can do it all on her own.
I think it's very interesting they turned Nakamura heel during his feud with Styles. But I dislike how they've booked Nakamura into trying to win bouts with low blow strikes; I think it damages his reputation as a premier knee striker. And now Styles has been booked into returning the favor. This is just bad. offensive booking.
