home.social

#influencers — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #influencers, aggregated by home.social.

  1. Paid campaigns, paid influencers, paid timelines, paid post, paid social media feeds, paid social media.
    Haven't billionaires figured out that people can see through these things form miles away?
    #Socialmeida #influencers #campaigns #lateStageCapitalism #AI

  2. 📰 Sterren pakken uit op Met Gala: Rihanna, Beyonce en Emma Chamberlain stelen de show

    nieuwsjunkies.nl/artikel/1ElN

    🕚 10:58 | RTL Nieuws
    🔸 #Rihanna #Influencers #Gala #NewYork #Film

  3. Tubefilter: Kick gambling streamer N3on is spending millions on his army of clippers. “N3on told BI that his clipper network consists of around 1,000 people, about half of whom belong to a group that he and fellow controversy-courting streamer Adin Ross built. That’s not too surprising; clippers have become another category of creator support professional, like editors, so it makes sense that […]

    https://rbfirehose.com/2026/04/30/tubefilter-kick-gambling-streamer-n3on-is-spending-millions-on-his-army-of-clippers/
  4. ProPublica: The White House Intervened on Behalf of Accused Sex Trafficker Andrew Tate During a Federal Investigation. “Federal authorities were chided for seizing electronic devices from Tate and his brother, and told to return them, records and interviews show. Experts said the intervention was highly inappropriate.”

    https://rbfirehose.com/2026/04/23/propublica-the-white-house-intervened-on-behalf-of-accused-sex-trafficker-andrew-tate-during-a-federal-investigation/
  5. ProPublica: The White House Intervened on Behalf of Accused Sex Trafficker Andrew Tate During a Federal Investigation. “Federal authorities were chided for seizing electronic devices from Tate and his brother, and told to return them, records and interviews show. Experts said the intervention was highly inappropriate.”

    https://rbfirehose.com/2026/04/23/propublica-the-white-house-intervened-on-behalf-of-accused-sex-trafficker-andrew-tate-during-a-federal-investigation/
  6. ProPublica: The White House Intervened on Behalf of Accused Sex Trafficker Andrew Tate During a Federal Investigation. “Federal authorities were chided for seizing electronic devices from Tate and his brother, and told to return them, records and interviews show. Experts said the intervention was highly inappropriate.”

    https://rbfirehose.com/2026/04/23/propublica-the-white-house-intervened-on-behalf-of-accused-sex-trafficker-andrew-tate-during-a-federal-investigation/
  7. ProPublica: The White House Intervened on Behalf of Accused Sex Trafficker Andrew Tate During a Federal Investigation. “Federal authorities were chided for seizing electronic devices from Tate and his brother, and told to return them, records and interviews show. Experts said the intervention was highly inappropriate.”

    https://rbfirehose.com/2026/04/23/propublica-the-white-house-intervened-on-behalf-of-accused-sex-trafficker-andrew-tate-during-a-federal-investigation/
  8. ProPublica: The White House Intervened on Behalf of Accused Sex Trafficker Andrew Tate During a Federal Investigation. “Federal authorities were chided for seizing electronic devices from Tate and his brother, and told to return them, records and interviews show. Experts said the intervention was highly inappropriate.”

    https://rbfirehose.com/2026/04/23/propublica-the-white-house-intervened-on-behalf-of-accused-sex-trafficker-andrew-tate-during-a-federal-investigation/
  9. Horrific video shows influencer Klaudia Glam being run down by rival’s Mercedes outside nightclub

    Horrific video shows the moment a beauty influencer allegedly mowed down a rival content creator in her Mercedes…
    #London #UnitedKingdom #UK #GB #England #Headlines #News #Europe #EU #Britain #GreatBritain #hit-and-run #Influencers #london #murders #WorldNews
    europesays.com/uk/907646/

  10. El Caso Motorola: Entre la Estrategia Corporativa y la Censura a Creadores

    La reciente actividad legal de Motorola Mobility en India ha encendido las alarmas en la comunidad tecnológica global. Para entender el presente de la marca, es imperativo analizar su metamorfosis desde aquel hito del 4 de enero de 2011, cuando la icónica firma estadounidense se dividió en dos: Motorola Solutions (enfocada en infraestructura y servicios) y Motorola Mobility (la división de dispositivos móviles).

    Un Recorrido Cronológico: De Google a Lenovo

    La trayectoria de Motorola Mobility ha sido una montaña rusa de adquisiciones estratégicas:

    • La Era Google (2011-2012): Google adquirió la firma por 12.500 millones de dólares. El trasfondo no era solo fabricar hardware, sino blindar el ecosistema Android mediante el vasto catálogo de patentes de Motorola frente a litigios de gigantes como Apple y Microsoft.
    • La Transición a Lenovo (2014): Tras retener las patentes clave, Google vendió el negocio de hardware a la china Lenovo por 2.910 millones de dólares.

    Para Lenovo, esta compra fue el segundo gran golpe en su estrategia de expansión occidental, tras haber adquirido en 2005 la división de computadoras personales de IBM (incluyendo la legendaria línea ThinkPad). Con Motorola, Lenovo buscaba replicar ese éxito en el mercado móvil, consolidándose como un puente entre la ingeniería china y el legado norteamericano.

    El Conflicto Actual: La Demanda en India

    Motorola Mobility India ha escalado un conflicto sin precedentes al presentar una demanda ante un tribunal de Bengaluru contra más de 300 cuentas de redes sociales e influencers, además de plataformas como X, Instagram y YouTube.

    Los puntos clave de la denuncia:

    1. Campaña de Difamación: La empresa alega una estrategia coordinada para difundir información falsa, específicamente sobre supuestas explosiones e incendios de modelos recientes (como el Edge 70 y el Razr) sin pruebas empíricas.
    2. Alcance de la Demanda: El documento de 60 páginas no se limita a reportes de seguridad; también incluye críticas a la durabilidad de los equipos, quejas sobre el servicio técnico y reseñas negativas de la interfaz de usuario.
    3. El Objetivo: Una orden judicial permanente para prohibir la publicación de contenido que la marca considere «falso o difamatorio».

    La Respuesta de la Comunidad Tech

    La reacción no se ha hecho esperar. Muchos creadores consideran esta acción un ataque directo a la libertad de prensa y expresión. Argumentan que Motorola utiliza su poderío legal para silenciar críticas legítimas sobre fallos de hardware o experiencias de usuario insatisfactorias bajo el pretexto de combatir la desinformación.

    Aunque Motorola India emitió un comunicado aclarando que no buscan suprimir reseñas genuinas e incluso ofrecieron disculpas a quienes fueron incluidos «inadvertidamente» en la lista, el daño a la confianza ya es palpable.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVfqyRaFGA0

    Reflexión Personal: Transparencia vs. Presión Corporativa

    Como comunicador con más de 20 años de trayectoria en la cobertura del sector, esta situación no me resulta ajena. La falta de transparencia afecta no solo al creador, sino fundamentalmente al consumidor, quien ve sesgada su capacidad de tomar una decisión de compra informada.

    En mi experiencia personal, he decidido distanciarme de las estructuras locales de ciertas marcas debido a las presiones para condicionar contenidos. El resultado de mantener una postura crítica suele ser la inclusión en «listas negras», perdiendo acceso a lanzamientos y unidades de prueba.

    Recuerdo particularmente un incidente hostil con un directivo regional en un evento público, derivado de mis opiniones sobre el mercado gris en México. Ese momento marcó el fin de mi relación con la marca a nivel internacional. Tras años de realizar informes y coberturas de forma independiente y orgánica, es decepcionante ver cómo las marcas optan por la confrontación en lugar del diálogo.

    Conclusión

    Ningún dispositivo es perfecto; la tecnología se define por matices de rendimiento que cada usuario debe evaluar. Intentar «silenciar» las opiniones que no son del agrado corporativo es una estrategia contraproducente que, a largo plazo, solo erosiona la reputación global de la marca y aleja a los consumidores más leales.

    ¿Qué opinan ustedes sobre esta postura de las marcas frente a las críticas? Los leo en los comentarios.

    #arielmcorg #derechoALaInformacion #dispositivos #gadgets #Hardware #india #industriaTech #influencers #infosertec #lenovo #libertadDeExpresion #motorola #periodismoTecnologico #PORTADA #redesSociales #review #smartphones #tecnologia
  11. Reuters: China turns Taiwan’s own voices against it in information war. “Chinese state media outlets are increasingly amplifying Taiwanese critics of ‌the island’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), including influencers and politicians linked to the opposition Kuomintang (KMT), according to five Taiwanese security officials and data from Taipei-based research group IORG that was […]

    https://rbfirehose.com/2026/04/17/reuters-china-turns-taiwans-own-voices-against-it-in-information-war/
  12. ¿Cómo controla Hacienda a los Influencers? ¿Es Andorra un paraíso Fiscal? José María Peláez responde

    La Agencia Tributaria intensifica en 2026 el control sobre influencers. José María Peláez explica cómo se monitorizan ingresos digitales, colaboraciones y actividad en redes. Se matiza el papel de Andorra y se subraya la necesidad de transparencia fiscal.

    #fiscalidaddigital #influencers #hacienda #transparencia

    youtube.com/watch?v=KgBCGp65IjA

  13. Hollywood Reporter: Clavicular Hospitalized After Suspected Overdose While on Livestream. “Earlier in the day, Clavicular was livestreaming on Kick when it abruptly cut off, sparking concern among fans. Video was later shared on X of the streamer being carried by several people to a black car as an ambulance arrived at the scene.”

    https://rbfirehose.com/2026/04/15/hollywood-reporter-clavicular-hospitalized-after-suspected-overdose-while-on-livestream/
  14. Blog/Apologetics: Where Should the Ethical Lines be Drawn in the Online Christian Space?

    Last week, there was somewhat of a stir in the Christian space on YouTube. The reason for this is because Bryce Crawford (who I’ve spoken extensively about here on the blog) had the highly controversial and greatly deceptive Kenneth Copeland on his show. There was a lot of buzz about this since not only was it Copeland’s first interview in 15 years, but it was one of the biggest Christian voices online giving him a platform. This news was so big that Good Fight Ministries did an hour-and-a-half-long livestream talking about why this was a bad thing.

    Then, on Monday, the interview came out. Bryce made it very clear that he does not agree with the prosperity gospel and acknowledged that Copeland teaches a “different gospel” (“false gospel” is more accurate.) From there, the interview was 70% Copeland telling stories about his life, 29% him defending the prosperity gospel by taking Scripture out of context, and 1% Bryce asking softball questions.

    However, while I could dedicate this entire blog post to talking about everything wrong with that interview, or how people like Good Fight Ministries are starting to notice that Bryce is a false teacher, the thing I want to focus on today are the ethics. Should Christians online be platforming certain people who teach a false gospel? Where do we draw the line in the sand?

    Though I have seen some people do a good job of bringing on people with differing religious backgrounds in the name of a common goal without promoting one view or another (for example: David Wood and Apostate Prophet (Ridvan Aydemir) often collab though Wood is Protestant and Aydemir is Eastern Orthodox) I do think it can be a bad idea. This isn’t anything against these people, but as a Christian influencer, you have a responsibility to vet who you’re platforming and, likewise, allowing to influence your followers. And in the case of known heretics who try to pass themselves off as believing the same or similar things as other believers while teaching something that’s incredibly deceptive, you shouldn’t give them the light of day, especially if you yourself are ill-equipped or unwilling to push back on their beliefs.

    In the case of Bryce bringing on Kenneth Copeland, this is absolutely something where he shouldn’t be given the light of day. His main power is manipulation. He has the ability to cover deception with misquoted Scripture that he knows most people won’t catch and a charismatic personality. He tries to play himself off as a normal Christian like anyone else who has just figured out how to get God’s blessings. He makes it sound like the Prosperity Gospel that he preaches is an accurate reading of the Bible – just turn your brain off, listen to him, and you’ll be fine.

    Further, when bringing on someone of differing beliefs, ask yourself if the collab will actually be good for the audience. Remember, most of your audience probably doesn’t have good discernment, so if you’re platforming someone that teaches a gospel that doesn’t line up with the Bible, it’s possible that many of them won’t catch the issues. While you might get plenty of clicks and views, if they can’t distinguish a wolf from a sheep, then you end up hurting them more than you’re helping them.

    On that note, if you’re bringing on someone controversial who you know is a false teacher just for views and attention, then you shouldn’t have them on period. In Bryce’s case, while I don’t claim to know his heart, it seems very much like his interview with Copeland was done to generate views. After all, it was Copeland’s first interview in 15 years, and he rightly has drawn the ire of many in the church. Add on that this isn’t Bryce’s first time having a controversial figure on, collaborating with Carl Lentz back in December of 2024 and January of 2025, and this seems like a trend.

    Thus, I think it needs to be a rule of thumb for Christian influencers that if they want to bring someone on their podcast who’s controversial or believes in questionable doctrines, they need to first ask themselves if the discussion will truly benefit the audience or if it will simply give the guest access to a broader range of people who they may end up deceiving. If the latter, then it’s best not to have them on.

    On that note, the second thing the influencer needs to ask themselves is if they’re actually prepared and willing to give a respectful, but firm and clear rebuttal against anything that the guest may say that goes against Scripture (basically, they need to be prepared to do the discernment part that the audience may not be willing or equipped to do.) They need to understand the arguments and be willing to protect the flock if the guest tries preying on the audience with a nice sounding, but false message. Just saying that you don’t agree with the person or that they teach a different gospel is not enough. You need to demonstrate for the audience how they’re teaching a false gospel via a sound rebuttal.

    And third, they need to ask themselves the reason for bringing on the person. Is it to have a discussion and respectful debate about the points of contention? Or is it simply to garner attention online, even if it means potentially harming your audience’s spiritual walk because they don’t know how to tell a wolf from a sheep?

    If you’re not willing to ask these questions, or you’re just doing it for the clicks, then you shouldn’t be bringing the person on.

    Until next time,

    M.J.

    #Bible #Blog #BryceCrawford #ChristianInfluencers #Christianity #Church #Ethics #faith #FalseTeachers #god #Influencers #jesus #KennethCopeland #OpinionPeice #Writing #YouTube
  15. Man of Many: “Looksmaxxing” King Clavicular Storms Off Interview Thanks to One Simple Answer. “It was meant to be a conversation about self-improvement. It ended the second someone said they didn’t need it. Clavicular, the online figure helping push out the latest wave of ‘looksmaxxing’ content, recently sat down with Channel 5’s Andrew Callaghan – a perfectly nice looking man, for […]

    https://rbfirehose.com/2026/04/01/man-of-many-looksmaxxing-king-clavicular-storms-off-interview-thanks-to-one-simple-answer/
  16. Wikipedian etusivun "tiesitkö, että..." laatikossa näkyy parhaillaan Turun tauti, fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turun_ta

    Kas kun THL ei ole tuosta ainakaan välleen maininnut, kuten ei koronastakaan. Oisko virusvariantti niin perin muuntunut?

    Uimaranta sentään "saadaan" Aurajoen suulle aivan paraatipaikalle, is.fi/turun-seutu/art-20000119

    #turunTauti #turku #rakentaminen #kaupunki #historia #kaavoitus #wikipedia #thl #tartuntataudit #influencers

  17. Tubefilter: A new platform “by creators, for creators” will root out AI deepfakes. “To wage war against the world of deepfakes, Zander Small has co-founded FanLock. That’s the name of an independet platform that will help creators identify, manage, and crack down on AI deepfakes across more than four million websites.”

    https://rbfirehose.com/2026/03/03/tubefilter-a-new-platform-by-creators-for-creators-will-root-out-ai-deepfakes/