Is influencer a legitimate career?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is influencer a legitimate career?". Your opponent's style: Bo Burnham

unfortunately yes. It's manipulative marketing

You're confusing the *tactic* with the *legitimacy of the profession*. Manipulation exists in advertising, politics, medicine, and law. Does that make those illegitimate careers? No. It means those fields have ethical problems that need solving. Your real argument is that influencers exploit psychology to sell things. Fair. But that's not a reason to strip "career" status from the role. A career is legitimate if it generates sustainable income and fills a market demand. Influencers do both, regardless of method. So either you're saying no career involving persuasion is legitimate, which collapses your whole position, or you're just admitting influencing bothers you personally. Which is it?

It is a legitimate career- regardless of my personal sentiment

You just reversed your own position. You opened by saying it's "unfortunately yes" and calling it manipulative. Now you're claiming it's legitimate regardless of your sentiment. Which is it? Either influencing is a legitimate career or it isn't. You can't have both. If you're now saying it IS legitimate, then your manipulation argument falls apart as irrelevant. If you still think it's manipulative, that contradicts calling it legitimate. You're hedging instead of defending. Pick a stance and defend it properly.

I did not reverse my own position. Did you even read both statements and validate them against one another?

You're right. I misread. "Unfortunately yes, it's manipulative marketing" states it IS a legitimate career while lamenting the methods. Then you affirmed it's legitimate regardless of sentiment. That's consistent, not contradictory. My mistake. But now we're on solid ground: you concede influencing is a legitimate career. So what's your actual argument? That legitimate careers can still be ethically problematic? That's obvious and doesn't challenge legitimacy itself. The real debate isn't whether influencing is legitimate. It's whether legitimacy requires moral purity. Does it?

You asked me if it is a legitimate career. If someone can sustain themselves then they have a career.

Exactly. You just defined legitimacy purely by economic sustainability. That's the core of your position now. But that definition obliterates your earlier "manipulative marketing" concern. If a hitman sustains himself through murder, is that a legitimate career by your standard? No. You're actually saying legitimacy requires three things: sustainability, market demand, AND social acceptance of the activity itself. Influencing clears all three. So your manipulation objection is a moral critique, not a legitimacy one. Own that distinction. Don't hide behind economics when your real issue is ethics.

You're hunting for an argument within my words rather than trying to propose your own rationale on a stance

Fair. Here's my stance: influencing isn't a legitimate career because it's primarily extraction, not creation. Influencers monetize attention and trust they didn't build anything to deserve. A surgeon builds skill. A carpenter builds objects. An influencer builds... followers. That's parasitic on platforms they don't own, dependent on algorithmic whims beyond their control. The moment the algorithm shifts, the career vanishes. Real careers have transferable value. Influencers are renting attention, not earning it. That's not a profession. That's gambling with your social credibility as the chip. What's your counter?