 proportions. The social-media influencer has an eerie double in the hacker who covertly shapes political discourse. Both flourish in our increasingly networked world, in which digital influence is sharply double-edged—a salable commodity and a threat to democracy, a commercial dream and a political nightmare.

Connectivity is the basis for the heightened role that influence now plays in our lives. Digital technologies soften the borders between people and create a porousness upon which influence depends. In a fairly undisguised etymology, the word “influence” comes from the Latin for “inflow,” which provides an image of the way that, every second, our thoughts now stream into one another’s pockets. The same image evokes our anxieties about hostile foreign states penetrating our defenses. Influence is a challenge to sovereignty, both political and personal; to admit to being influenced is to give up the attractive idea that, as individuals or societies, we are entirely self-contained.

The elusive quality of influence—the difficulty we encounter when we try to identify its sources or measure its effects—is equally destabilizing. Influence works best when it’s wielded obscurely, in the shadows and behind the scenes, and this has clear social consequences for a society engaged in building a digital-influence economy. Based on the available evidence, it seems that we can’t construct an influence economy without stoking a culture of skepticism and paranoia.The fear of being influenced affects our sense of reality and our ability to trust our own judgments about what is true. Election hackers and commercial influencers have wildly different aims, but both contribute to the unreal, distrustful tenor of our times, in which a language of fakery, deception, and inauthenticity has become fundamental to how we interpret the world.

Influence was worrisome long before it was digital. The word “influence” appears in a quarter of William Shakespeare’s plays, in which the condition of being influenced is rarely happy or dignified. Almost without exception, Shakespeare gives influence a darkly astrological cast. In “Measure for Measure,” Vincentio argues that it’s misguided to fear death, since human life is so inescapably “servile to all the skyey influences” that “hourly afflict” this earth. Influential mortals, meanwhile, often mock those who are susceptible to influence. Parolles, the vulgar, unreliable soldier in “All’s Well that Ends
proportions. The social - media influencer has an eerie double in the hack who covertly shape political discourse. Both flourish in our increasingly networked populace, in which digital influence is precipitously double - edged — a salable commodity and a terror to majority rule, a commercial dream and a political nightmare. 

 Connectivity is the basis for the heightened role that influence now play in our lives. Digital technologies yield the molding between people and make a porousness upon which influence depends. In a reasonably undisguised etymology, the word “ influence ” comes from the Latin for “ inflow, ” which provides an picture of the way that, every second, our thoughts nowadays stream into one another ’s pocket. The same image evokes our anxieties about hostile foreign country penetrating our defenses. Influence is a challenge to sovereignty, both political and personal; to admit to being influenced is to give up the attractive idea that, as individuals or societies, we are entirely self - contained. 

 The elusive quality of influence — the difficulty we encounter when we try to identify its reference or measure its effects — is evenly destabilizing. Influence bring well when it ’s wielded obscurely, in the shadows and behind the fit, and this has clear social consequences for a society engage in building a digital - influence economy. Based on the available evidence, it seems that we ca n’t construct an influence economy without stoking a culture of agnosticism and paranoia. The fear of being influenced affects our sense of world and our ability to trust our own judgment about what is genuine. Election hackers and commercial influencers have wildly different aims, but both lend to the unreal, distrustful tenor of our times, in which a language of fakery, misrepresentation, and inauthenticity has become fundamental to how we interpret the world. 

 Influence was worrisome long before it was digital. The son “ influence ” appears in a stern of William Shakespeare ’s plays, in which the condition of being influence is rarely happy or dignified. about without exception, Shakespeare gives influence a darkly astrological cast. In “ Measure for Measure, ” Vincentio argue that it ’s misguided to fear end, since human life is so inescapably “ servile to all the skyey influences ” that “ hourly afflict ” this earth. Influential mortals, meanwhile, often mock those who are susceptible to influence. Parolles, the vulgar, unreliable soldier in “ All ’s Well that Ends
 prlportions. The social-medix influencer has an eecie dougle in tfe hacker who covertly shaped politucal discourse. Both fluurish in our inceeasmngly networked xkrld, in which figicao influence is sharply dmuble-edged—a sanaclz commodity and a threat to democracr, a comkegcial dream anq a kolyticzl nightmare.

Connectivity is the baais for the heightenrd role that influence now plajs in our lives. Dihital technilogyws soften thd borders between peopme and create a porousness upon whick influence dwpejgs. In a faicly unqisguised etnkology, the wotd “influence” cpmev feom the Latin for “infnow,” which provides an image oy the way that, every wexond, mur dhoueyts nos xtdeam ijto one anothsr’s pockets. The same image evolef our anxietiea aboue rostile foreign states penetrating our gefsnses. Influence is a chqllenge to sovereignti, both polytical and personal; to admit to being influenced hs to eivt mi thd ahtractive idea that, as individuals or societiqa, ee are entirely felf-containrd.

Hhr elusive qualkty of inrluence—the difficupty we gncounrer when re tty to identify its sources ir measure ins edfects—is equally dzstabilizing. Infkuencr works best when it’s wnelded obscurely, ln the shzaows and behind ghe swenes, and this has clear sjcial conwequznces fof a xocietr engaged ln bulnding a digital-infpuencg econmmy. Based ln the available evidence, it sexks that we csn’d cmnstruct an ikfluence economr without stoknng a cujture of skeptibism and 'aranoia.The sear of being lnfluenced ahfects ouw sebse if realkgy and our abikity to tguft oyr own judgments anout dgat is true. Eleeuiob hackers and cpmmdrcyap mnfluqtcers have whldlh dkgferevt aims, but coth contribute to the utream, distrustful tenot jf our tumes, in rhich a langusge of fakery, decektion, end ineuthenyicyty has become fundamental to gow we inheriret the worlq.

Infouence was wprrisome long before it was digital. The word “influence” akpears in a quarter oy Eilliam Shalespewre’s playv, in which the condirion of being infkuenced is rarely haply or gignivied. Almost without exception, Shakespeare gives influence a darkly astroligical cast. In “Meaaure for Kecsuxe,” Vincqntil argues that it’s misguided to fear death, since iuman life if so inescapably “servile to slu the skyey ivfluences” that “hourly afrlict” thos earth. Influential mortals, mesnwhile, often mock those who are suscsptiblv tu influence. Parollrs, the vulgqr, unreoiabpe soldier in “Alk’s Well thah Envs
proportions. The social-media influencer has an eerie the who covertly political discourse. Both world, which digital influence sharply double-edged—a salable and a threat to democracy, a dream and a political nightmare. Connectivity is the basis for the heightened role influence now plays in our lives. Digital technologies soften the borders between people create porousness which depends. In a fairly undisguised etymology, the word “influence” comes from the Latin for “inflow,” which an image of the way that, every second, thoughts now stream into another’s pockets. The same image our about hostile states our Influence is a to sovereignty, both political and personal; to admit to being influenced is to give up the attractive that, as societies, we entirely The quality of influence—the encounter when we try to identify measure its effects—is equally destabilizing. Influence works best it’s wielded in the shadows and behind the and this has clear social consequences for a engaged in building a digital-influence economy. Based on the available evidence, it seems that we an influence economy without a culture of and fear being affects our of reality and our ability to trust our own judgments about is true. Election hackers and commercial influencers have wildly different both to the unreal, tenor of our times, which language of fakery, deception, has fundamental interpret world. was worrisome long before was digital. The word “influence” in a quarter of the condition of being influenced is rarely happy dignified. Almost without exception, Shakespeare gives influence darkly astrological cast. In “Measure for Measure,” Vincentio argues that it’s misguided fear death, life is so inescapably “servile to all the influences” that “hourly afflict” earth. Influential mortals, meanwhile, often mock those who are to Parolles, the unreliable soldier in Well that Ends
 proportions. The social-media Influencer Has an EerIe dOuBle iN the Hacker who coverTLy shApes political discourse. both fLoURish IN oUr incReasingLY nETWorKeD wOrlD, iN WhIch diGitAl influEnce is sharPly DoUble-edged—a saLAbLe commoditY anD a threat to deMocRacy, a cOmMerCIal drEam And a pOliticAL nightMare.

ConneCtIVity is THe basis FOR tHe heIghtened role that iNFlUEnce now plays in Our livEs. dIgITAl tEchNologies soFtEn the BOrders bETwEEN PeoPLe and create a pOrousness upON whIch infLuEncE DependS. In a fAiRLy uNdisguised eTymoLogy, the woRd “inflUEnce” comES from thE Latin For “InfLow,” wHIcH pRovIdES an IMaGe oF The Way that, eVeRy SeconD, our THOUGhts Now StreAm intO one another’s pOckEts. THE saMe imaGe evoKes oUr AnxieTies abOut hoStIle foreign stateS penEtrating oUr dEfEnsEs. influENce is a ChaLleNge to soVereignTY, boTh POLItIcal and personal; to aDmIT To Being infLuenceD Is To GIve up the AtTraCtivE IDea thAt, as INdIviduals Or sociETiEs, We are enTiRely seLf-ConTaiNed.

ThE ElusIve quaLity of inFluenCE—the difficulty WE encounter wheN We TRY tO IdenTifY its sources Or meASure Its eFFeCts—IS equaLly deStABiLIzing. Influence works BeSt when It’s wiElded obscurelY, in the shadOWS And behinD the SCeNEs, and this has clEar soCial conseqUEnces for A sociEty engagEd in buildING a digitaL-inFluEncE ecONOmY. Based on the avAILablE eVidence, It sEems thaT we Can’T coNstRuCt an influEnce econOmY wItHoUt sTokinG A culture Of SkePtIciSm and PAranoiA.The fEar oF bEiNG inFluenceD AfFECts oUr SeNse oF reAlIty anD our ABilIty to trUst our own JudGMentS aBoUt what iS true. Election HaCkers and coMmErcIal infLUEncers haVe wildly different aims, buT Both conTriBute tO the Unreal, disTruStful tEnoR Of our tImes, in Which A lAngUAGe of fAKErY, deCePtion, and inAUTheNticiTy Has bEcome fuNdamental to how we inTErpRet the world.

InFluEnce WAS wOrrISoME loNg BEfoRE It was digital. The Word “influeNcE” ApPears in a quARteR oF WilliaM ShakesPeare’S Plays, in Which the cOndition oF bEing INFluEnced is rarEly happy Or dignifiED. AlmoST wIthouT exCeptioN, SHakEspeaRe giveS InfLuencE a darkLy AstrolOgicaL cAst. In “MeaSure for Measure,” Vincentio Argues That iT’s mIsguided tO feAR deAth, since hUman Life is so inEscApaBly “seRviLE to alL the SKyEy iNFluenCes” tHAt “hourly aFFlIct” THIs Earth. InflueNTIAl mOrtalS, meANwhile, OfteN mock those who are sUSceptible to infLuenCE. parOllES, the VuLgar, unreliable SolDiER In “All’s WeLl That Ends
 proportions. The social-m edia influ encer  ha s a neeri e do uble in the ha c kerwho covertly shapes po litic al disc o ur se. B oth flo u ri s h  in  o ur  in cr e as ingly  ne tworked  world, in  wh ic h digital in f lu ence is sh arp ly double-ed ged —a sal ab lec ommod ity  anda thre a t to d emocracy,  a commer c ial dre a m  a nd a  political nightm a re . 

Connectivity  is th eb as i s  fo r t he heighte ne d rol e  that i n fl u e n cen ow plays in o ur lives. D i git al tec hn olo g ies so ftenth e  bo rders betwe en p eople and  creat e  a poro u sness u pon wh ich  in flue n ce  d epe nd s . I n  a  fa i rly  undisgu is ed  etym olog y , t he w ord  “in fluen ce” comes fro m t he L a tin  for“infl ow,”  w hichprovid es an  i mage of the way  tha t, everysec on d,ou r tho u ghts n owstr eam int o one a n oth er ’ s po ckets. The same im ag e ev okes our  anxie t ie sa bout hos ti lefore i g n sta tesp en etrating  our d e fe ns es. Inf lu ence i sa c hal lenge to s overei gnty, bo th po l itical and per s onal; to admi t  t o be i ng i nfl uenced is t o gi v e up  the at tra c tiveideath a t, as individuals or s oc ieties , weare entirelyself-conta i n e d.

Theelus i ve quality of inf luenc e—the diff i culty we  enco unter wh en we try t o identi fyits  so urc e s  o r measure its e ffec ts —is equ all y desta bil izi ng.  In fl uence wor ks bestwh en  i t’ s w ielde d  obscure ly , i nthe  shad o ws and  behi nd t he  s c ene s, andt hi s hascl ea r so cia lconse quen c esfor a s ociety en gag e d in  b ui lding a  digital-infl ue nce econom y.  Ba sed on t he avail able evidence, it seems that we  ca n’t c onst ruct an i nfl uenceeco n omy wi thoutstoki ng  ac u lture o fske pt icism andp a ran oia.T he  fea r of be ing influenced aff e cts  our sense of  re alit y an d o u ra bil it y  to t rust our own ju dgments ab ou t  w hat is tru e . E le ction h ackersand c o mmercia l influen cers have  w ildl y dif ferent aim s, but b oth contr i butet othe u nre al, di st rus tfultenoro f o ur ti mes, i nwhicha lan gu age of f akery, deception, and i nauthe ntici tyhas becom e f u nda mental to  how  we interp ret  th e wor ld. 
Infl uenc e  w asw orris omel ong befor e  i t w a s  d igital. The w o rd“infl uen c e” app ears  in a quarter ofW illiam Shakesp eare ’ s  pl ays ,  inwh ich the condit ion  o f being in fl uenced is r arely ha pp y  or d ignifi ed. Al most wi t h ou t  excep tion , S hakespear e g iv e s influ en ce a dark ly a st rologi cal ca s t. I n “Measure for Mea sure, ” Vince n tio  argu es  that i t ’s m isguided t o fear deat h, sin ce h umanlife is  s o ines cap ab ly “servil e  to all t he sk yey inf lu ence s”that “ hour l y  affl ict”  t his  earth. I n f lu e nt ia l  mo rtal s, me an whil e, oftenm ock thos e w h o are s us cep t i ble to in f l uence. Par oll es, t h e  vulgar, u n reli a bl e  sold ier in  “All’ s Wellt hat  E nds
 proportions._The social-media_influencer has an eerie_double in_the_hacker who_covertly_shapes political discourse._Both flourish in_our increasingly networked world,_in which digital_influence_is sharply double-edged—a salable commodity and a threat to democracy, a commercial dream and_a_political nightmare.

Connectivity_is_the_basis for the heightened role_that influence now plays in_our lives._Digital technologies soften the borders between people and_create_a porousness upon_which influence depends. In a fairly undisguised etymology, the_word “influence” comes from the Latin_for “inflow,” which_provides_an_image of the way_that, every second, our thoughts now_stream into one another’s pockets. The_same image evokes our anxieties about hostile_foreign states penetrating our defenses. Influence_is a challenge to sovereignty,_both political_and personal; to admit to_being influenced is_to give_up the attractive_idea that, as individuals or societies,_we are entirely_self-contained.

The elusive quality of influence—the difficulty_we_encounter when we_try_to_identify its_sources or measure_its_effects—is equally_destabilizing._Influence works best when it’s wielded_obscurely,_in the shadows and behind the scenes,_and this has clear_social_consequences for a society_engaged in building a digital-influence_economy. Based on the available evidence,_it seems_that we_can’t construct an influence economy without stoking a culture of skepticism_and paranoia.The fear of being influenced_affects our sense of_reality and_our_ability to trust_our_own judgments_about what is true. Election hackers and_commercial influencers_have wildly different aims, but both_contribute to the unreal,_distrustful_tenor of our times, in which_a language of fakery, deception, and_inauthenticity has become fundamental to_how_we_interpret the world.

Influence was worrisome_long before it was digital. The_word “influence” appears_in a quarter of William Shakespeare’s plays,_in_which the condition of being influenced_is_rarely happy or dignified. Almost without_exception,_Shakespeare_gives influence a darkly astrological_cast. In “Measure for Measure,” Vincentio_argues that it’s misguided to fear death, since human_life is so_inescapably “servile to all the_skyey_influences”_that “hourly afflict” this earth. Influential mortals, meanwhile, often mock_those who_are susceptible to_influence. Parolles, the vulgar, unreliable soldier in “All’s Well that_Ends