As ususal there's even more discussion of influence flying around the social sphere these days, some of which started with David Pakman's gushing endorsement of his newest investment.
Pakman states "Klout’s algorithms score the actual influence of people as they share on the social web. They attempt to measure your influence by observing interactions on the social web. As we all work to build and manage our online identity and profile, Klout helps measure our reach and topics of influence."
The problem with his premise is that it mistakenly equates social activity with influence. Nathan Gilliat brilliantly dismisses that argument.
Pakman's premise is that it assumes that people who are active on Twitter and Facebook somehow DESERVE to be treated better by restaurants airlines etc. I don't disagree that social media helps give consumers more power and makes brands more accountable, but lets not forget that all Klout measures is activity, mostly on Twitter. So if I am on bereivement leave or vacation, and my Klout score drops because my I'm away from electronic devices, I no longer deserve good service or a good meal? That sounds like a new version of the caste system, but one based on one's access to social media.
This isn't measurement, it is discrimination.
The uncivil society that Pakman proposes is one in which someone with a smart robot can game their way to a high klout score and then leverage that score to muscle their way onto planes, doctor's offices and restaurants. Can't wait to see what the 99% does with that.