I think I get what the article is trying to say, but I have to admit that bringing in the concept of "brand" seriously derails it for me.
My identity is not a "brand", the identifiers I use online are not a "brand", and I don't interact with "brands". I interact with people.
What I'm not sure about is whether I'm just having a reaction to the use of the concept of "brand" that is obscuring a meaningful and accurate point for me.
Now that I've written all of this, though, I'm not sure that I understood what the article was trying to say at all.
EDIT: now that I've read it a couple of times, I'm pretty sure that I don't understand what it's really saying. Can someone explain like I'm five?
My identity is not a "brand", the identifiers I use online are not a "brand", and I don't interact with "brands". I interact with people.
What I'm not sure about is whether I'm just having a reaction to the use of the concept of "brand" that is obscuring a meaningful and accurate point for me.
Now that I've written all of this, though, I'm not sure that I understood what the article was trying to say at all.
EDIT: now that I've read it a couple of times, I'm pretty sure that I don't understand what it's really saying. Can someone explain like I'm five?