Klout, a service that tracks how much social media attention its users draw and rates their expertise based on the content of their posts, will be switched off on May 25—an announcement that has ironically had Klout trending on Twitter today.
The service, which launched in 2008, also offered an application-programming interface that allowed businesses to collect analytics data about their audiences. Klout also offered “perks” to individuals based on their scores and demographics.
For many early social media users, Klout was a way to gauge how much traction their Twitter, Facebook, and other social media posts were getting. Klout’s semantic tracking of content also granted “expert” status on various topic tags. Klout claimed to have given out over 1 million “perks” by 2013, according to an article in AdWeek—with offers such as weekend-long test drives of Chevy cars. And in 2012, the company drew investment from Microsoft—along with an arrangement to show Klout scores for select individuals in Bing search results.
But Klout’s success in getting people to sign up and give access to their social media feed data was built largely on users’ need to rank themselves—and the gamification of a total abandonment of privacy. Klout’s “lackadaisical approach to privacy” and fundamental underpinnings led science fiction author John Scalzi to call the service “a little bit socially evil” in 2011.
Another author, Charlie Stross, compared Klout to herpes in the way it spread—farming the email contacts of people who signed up and automatically creating accounts for them:
If you sign up for Klout you are coming down with the internet equivalent of herpes. Worse, you risk infecting all your friends. Klout’s business model is flat-out illegal in the UK (and, I believe, throughout the EU) and if you have an account with them I would strongly advise you to delete it and opt out; if you’re in the UK you could do worse than send them a cease-and-desist plus a request to delete all your data, then follow up a month later with a Freedom of Information Act request.
Some were more gentle—The New Yorker‘s Nicholas Thompson, in an article entitled “Klout is Evil But It Can Be Saved,” wrote that while Klout was a clever idea, “clever ideas are not necessarily good ones, and Klout is designed in a way that makes it likely to fuel both unhealthy obsession and unhappy competition.”

Loading comments...