CMV: If you have over 1000 followers on any social media platform, you are not a private citizen and thus open to criticism from the public.

Well, the title says it all really. <br><br>There is a trend on social media, (Chambers incl), that if you have a social media presence, but you are not fully a celebrity or under the public eye, then you get to have all the benefits of having a public platform, but none of the negative aspects. This includes, but is not limited to, having your entire history scraped for anything offensive, and then having it used as a reason to harass you, or get you fired. <br><br>But the flip side of this is that you are completely allowed to voice anything you want, political, controversial, etc, and then act as if you are still a private citizen. You aren't. You have a massive reach and influence, and thus you should be scrutinized just as much as any other celebrity. <br><br>Now this doesn't extend to everyone, if you just have 1000 random followers that you've collected over the years because of random might have been interested in you or something you posted one, this does not extend to you, it's for people who actively post, and have a following, (e.g. trade your following as a professional asset) <br><br>Actively going out of your way to gather followers, to advertise your social media, and to trade on your following should not allow you to retain the privileges of being a private citizen, and allow you to voice all manner of opinions without criticism from the public, without risking your livelihood over. <br><br>This is more than just the standard "you shouldn't be controversial on social media". It's if you are actively trying to grow your following, then you open yourself up to everything that a public figure is open to. This is especially true for people who trade on their following as their livelihood. They should be treated as any other public figure is, they should allow for criticism of their past, if it would reflect on their current work, they should be open to criticism in ways that a private citizen shouldn't be. <br><br>The best example of this is comedian Joel Kim Booster who has threatened to sue me over this take: <br><br>>Hi! I am Joel Kim Booster. I did something really crappy when I was a teenager. I’m very sorry. That’s all<br><br>Well, if I had made this post: <br><br>>Hi! I am {USername}. I did something really crappy when I was a teenager. I’m very sorry. That’s all<br><br>and I had 200 followers on Twitter, nobody would have cared, nobody would have even seen it. But if Joel Kim Booster does this, tens of thousands of people see it, even if they've never followed him before. <br><br>So if I did something crappy as an adult, I would only face criticism from a few dozen people, most of whom know me personally, but if I am a person who has a large following, then if I did something crappy as an adult, I should expect a much larger backlash, and I should be open to criticism in ways that the private citizen isn't. <br><br>If someone posts something about hating the next Trump Presidential campaign, and they have 100 followers, then nobody really sees or cares. But if someone with tens of thousands of followers does the same thing, it shows a lack of self-awareness to not expect backlash. <br><br>Now this doesn't mean that nobody should be able to say whatever they want on social media, this isn't saying that there is no place for off-topic content on social media, but if I want to voice controversial political opinions, I should accept that if I have a large following, I will face criticism of my opinions. If I want to voice controversial might have been interested in me or something I posted one, then I should accept that my past will be used against me, and that people will act in kind. <br><br>This is why I think that anyone with over 1000 followers should be treated not as a private citizen, but as a public figure, and should not have the protections that a private citizen does, and should not be upset if people criticize them for anything.