Why Slow and Steady Wins the Race in Social Media

A lot of the times, new business pop up and their owners are so excited about this new venture that they think they need to see quick growth on social media. This mindset may lead them to make some rash decisions such as buying followers or spending too much on ads. And it may look impressive to investors to have gained over 1,000 followers in under a month, but savvy investors know there's more to it than that. And the day-to-day consumer probably won't even pay attention.

Let's get this out of the way right at the front: Do not buy followers. No one knows for sure, but it's estimated that about 15% of social media accounts are bots. That's 15% of about 3 billion. So, if you had every bot on Twitter following you, it would bring your follower count up to about 450 million. Sounds impressive, right? It does right up until you realize that bots aren't buying your products or telling any real people about you. You could make the case that the high number of foll…

Ballot initiative would require married couples to "show proof of procreation"

Boing Boing.net says there is a Ballot initiative would require married couples to "show proof of procreation". From the article:
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a “legitimate state interest” allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this “legitimate state interest,” it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.
The only downside is "the Defense of Marriage Initiative would: ... require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled..." What if I want to get married without children? Or worse . . . what if I can't have children?

On the other hand, many of the "marriage benefits" that this initiative would protect have to do with tax claims and insurance coverage having to do with starting a family and having kids, I assume. (Not that I'm an expert on legal marriage benefits.)

With that in mind, however, it's completely reasonable to assume that marriage benefits were designed for a family with children and would therefore have no place in homes where a couple is unable or unwilling to procreate. Taking those benefits away from everyone who doesn't intend to have kids, gay or straight, would probably take away much of the homosexual interest in marriage. This whole thing, however, doesn't account for adoption.

So the initiative has a few kinks to work out. We'll, no doubt, see where this goes.

Comments