I am watching a battle of words unfold on Twitter, where a passionate hepatologist (@theliverdr) is taking on “biohacking” influencer Bryan Johnson (@bryan_johnson). Where is the science in your supplements, asks the doctor. Why are you so angry, responds Bryan. But this essay isn’t about them. This essay is about everyone’s favourite subject in the modern internet age – the creator economy.

In this “new economy”, company names are irrelevant because corporations are replaced by individual creators and social-media influencers. The face of the brand is also the merchant. The audience and follower of the creator is the customer. Or at least, that is the goal. For that is how a creator can become an economy.

Expectedly, thus, the creator’s own values, principles, beliefs, knowledge, opinions — whatever of it he/she shares or projects in the public domain — becomes paramount. Creators create “communities” around their belief and knowledge systems. Simultaneously, they also create “anti-communities” — groups of people opposed to their belief-systems. As the creator economy carves out niches and target audiences, it also divides the populace. Perhaps not intentionally, but belief and value systems are polarising by design.

In such an economy, seeking science, logic, rationale, credentials becomes painfully meaningless. Why? Because that is not what building online communities is all about. That is not what the creator economy is all about. Some creators may be about all that, but only if that is what they have chosen as their “personal brand”. In this case, the doctor’s personal brand revolves around hard, scientific evidence which he seeks from Bryan, Bryan’s brand of influence revolves around a certain variant of pop science that doesn’t necessitate the same type or depth of scientific evidence. The doctor is upset at Bryan and biohackers for creating misinformed cults, but isn’t that what all of the creator economy and “community building” tries to do — build cults, because it makes commerce easier (aka “scalable”)?

It can be said, Bryan’s community/cult (I shall use these interchangeably here onwards) is all about longevity, biohacking (a scentific-sounding, non-scientific term) and apparently, expensive supplements and a Netflix special. He also leveraged his platform to critique India’s pollution, triggering patriots who had never before found reason to question his credibility.

Arguably, @theliverdr may also be creating a mini cult — of people who care about the things he cares about. Science, health misinformation debunking, alternate medicine criticism, etc. He might be passionate about expanding this community if he believes it’ll create benefits for people at large. He has science on his side, so he might even be right.

More importantly, though, as “creators”, the doctor and Bryan may have two beliefs in common — that they want to improve the world, and that they know how to do it.

Heck, I with a much smaller following probably do the same. The 130K or so followers on LinkedIn and the 6K or so on Twitter — I guess these are people who care/don’t care about the things I care/don’t care about?

What is common to every “creator” is their passion for and optimism in their belief, cause, or goal, which ultimately manifests in the community they build. But no matter how “right” or noble, not everyone will be in on everyone’s community. Thus, “anti-communities”.

People join cults/communities based on their existing leanings; in that sense, the creator is merely a conduit for them to channel these leanings. However, after a point (maybe some thousands of followers), the creator does gain a disproportionate amount of power with little to no responsibility or accountability. That IS a problem — just not a problem anyone in this economy is incentivised to solve. In fact, the system and society at large is interested in fuelling it further. The creator economy is the future, et al.

What is interesting to me is that creator-led online communities are already entering the face-off phase. In this phase, values and beliefs of one community will collide with that of another increasingly more often. Sciencebros will challenge longevitybros while hawking books or products they consider more scientific. Longevitybros will rail against big pharma while marketing supplements and Netflix specials. Well-being peeps will criticise hustle-culture while selling face oils and serums. Self-proclaimed hustlers will criticise work-life-balance seekers while offering bad jobs that pay well. Work-life-balance seekers will denounce corporate overlords only to build personal brands for influencing and freelancing careers. And so on.

Perhaps, there are so many online communities (cults?) that have been birthed by now, that nearly every belief system will have an opposing faction. Most, if not all, of these factions will be right in some areas but will be self-driven (and possibly wrong) in others. They will be passionate about their cause but also a little blinded by how they see the world. They will rightfully criticise those who use their influence to sell stuff to presumably innocent consumers, but will also do the same at one point or another albeit with different products or services (that they will believe are better).

You see, in the creator economy, individual beliefs, values, opinions, even knowledge (whether real or projected) are a crucial lever for “community building”. The more consistently and/or loudly you speak, the larger the audience that assembles around you. Eventually, you will expect those people to pay back for all the education, information, entertainment… whatever it is that you were providing all along. That is the inflection point where online communities transform into commerce, where movements inevitably birth merch lines.

The question, therefore, is not who is right, but rather, who is selling what. Because if you are subscribing to someone’s “personal brand”, you better be prepared to buy their products and/or services, too.

Welcome to this new era of community-led growth in the creator economy, where authenticity is relative, celebrities are concocted, facts are subjective, and subject-matter credibility bows to the altar of influence. In this era, we are both the consumers and the consumed.

A new era of capitalism beckons, where ideologies will be nothing but business models. 

***