[papermill]

If the interest is artificially generated or fake, it will fade quickly for sure.

But I wouldn't say we shouldn't trust online phenomenon. Online phenomenon is why Obama and Trump got elected. Trump has effectively bypassed the traditional media's stranglehold on the american mind via his use of twitter and social media. And online phenomenon is why we have occasio-cortez.

As the internet gains more mind share, we have to start taking the online space more seriously.

[skybrian]

Yes, artificial interest can generate real interest. Isn't this what advertising does? I don't see why online publicity is necessarily less effective than advertising.

[dopylitty]

Why would artificial interest necessarily fade as long as whoever is generating it keeps generating it?

There’s no reason to believe any internet content amplifying the message of any candidate (or president) is genuine. In fact given the findings of the past several years it’s better to assume online content is in fact generated rather than genuine.

[papermill]

If there is no substance behind the enthusiasm, then it can't last because it has no legs to stand on. I agree that there are tons of fake nonsense on all media, not just social media. But that doesn't mean everything on media is fake.

Of course online content is generated. My point is whether that generated online content gains actual traction. Whether that generated online content has legs and real enthusiasm behind it.

An easy way to tell is if politicians can draw crowds to their speeches. You can measure online interactions between actual people and their enthusiasm. For example, if a politician has tons of online interest and he can draw big crowds, then we can assume that his online interest is real rather than fake. If a politician has tons of online interest but can't draw any people to his speeches, it's like his "enthusiasm" is bought for and has no traction.