I didn't wanna cite the Fortune article I got it from because it cited research from a group called "Whop" that didn't have the full data available. But here's the article I read
I do vaguely recall a more serious study showing a vast majority of kids thinking "influencer" was a viable career path and a very large portion beleiving it was the only viable career path for them. It also found that these percentages were higher in boys than in girls. That's the study I was trying to find but failed and found this instead
Consider a prompt like this to a Deep Research agent if you are interested:
How have youth career aspirations toward entertainment/fame-oriented careers changed over time (1960s-present), and does the rise of "influencer" represent a genuine shift or category substitution?
\"Specific sub-questions\":
1. What longitudinal or repeated cross-sectional surveys have asked children/teens about career aspirations with consistent methodology?
2. What were the historical rates for "actor/entertainer/movie star" type responses in surveys from 1970-2000?
3. How do current "influencer/YouTuber" rates compare when aggregated with traditional entertainment categories?
4. Are there international comparison studies showing different rates by country?
5. Is there evidence for changing perceived accessibility of fame careers (kids thinking it's actually achievable vs. fantasy)?
\"Priority sources\": Academic journals (Journal of Career Development, Journal of Vocational Behavior), Gallup historical archives, Pew Research, YouGov archives, OECD education reports, Harris polls historical data.
\"Methodological notes\": Flag when studies use different age ranges, different question framings (open-ended vs. multiple choice), and whether "entertainment" categories were offered or emerged organically.
I ran this for you and got some really interesting results[0] (TLDR: Young people have traded the stability of the "Company Man" for the autonomy of the "Personal Brand" in response to a labor market that no longer guarantees security.
I also wish we were attracting industries that weren't going to significantly push up electricity consumption on windless days, which will have an outsized effect on electricity prices everyone else pays. At least this says the datacentres will be up north, hopefully not exacerbating transmission issues.
This seems pretty consistent with what I said -- it is essentially a self-regulation body, promoting self-regulation but backed by statutory powers/penalties.
Now what else is untrue?
ETA: rate-limited so I am not able to properly respond to the below. Bye for now.
Quasi-autonomous, to be completely accurate. They consult regularly with the industry and ministers but the Office of Communications Act established Ofcom to be independent of both Government and industry. They're accountable to Parliament.
Perhaps that's the reason this is getting misunderstood. The distinction between the government and parliament is technical within the UK political system. To everyone outside that system, the whole system is "the government".
It's the political version of someone pointing to a computer tower and saying "this CPU can hold all of your music" and then you (a computer technician) interject "actually the hard drive can hold all of your music".
Your claim that Ofcom is in any way a "self-regulation body" is untrue. And frankly also a straight-up insane thing to say, sorry.
Ofcom was created by the UK government for the sole purpose of enforcing laws passed by the UK government [and sometimes interpreting those laws]. It acts on behalf of the State at all times, and is not empowered to do otherwise under any circumstances EVER.
You appear to be confused about what being a "quango" actually means in this case. "Quasi-NGO" means that while it appears to be a non-governmental organisation, it is not one. Ofcom's at arm's length because the majority of its daily legal obligations are closer to judicial than administrative, and it is UK custom (rightly) to not put judicial functions inside government departments.
While you're correct about Ofcom, the real distinction isn't really to the objective, but to the classification of its employees.
Ofcom, Gambling Commission, and the rest of the quangos are independent statutory bodies, and (this is a big distinction!) their employees are not civil servants.
Quangos include judicial tribunals and places like the BBC, or the Committee on Climate Change- it is a broad umbrella.
reply