> It’s human nature to follow only young influencers?

Marketers have known this for years before the appearance of "influencers" - youth sells, and a young women have better cross-gender appeal than young men. Go ahead an open any pre-WWW paper magazine, count the number of women vs. men who appear in the adverts for non-gendered products

Sex sells. Young attractive women attract the most sexual attention of any demographic (see any online dating/hookup site's stats, porn stats, etc).

And the commenter didn't say "only". Yes, people follow non-sexual influencers all the time, but it's much easier to get followers if you're sexually attractive.

Not a weird claim at all, you have to be very self conscious not to click and watch young people doing whatever. It is a natural tendency humans have. It has worked in any entertainment industry (from Hollywood to Youtube) because it exploits how our brains are wired.

If a majority of people do something because that's what they want to do, doesn't that by definition make it human nature?

That’s ignoring how much control and influence the platform itself has. It’s not a free market, the platform decides who trends and what matters or not.

No, it makes it a kind of human nature. People are not homogenous, there are distinct sub-types of personality, albeit not that many.

No. A majority of people doing something in a particular moment doesn't mean that it is an intrinsic quality of people. Otherwise we'll start to say that Coca-Cola and The Simpsons are genetic destiny.

There have been plenty of times during history during which nobody cared what young people thought. I'd venture to say the majority of it.

Nobody cares about what young people think now either. We are talking about a very small subset of model-like stylish youngsters (mostly women). 99.99% continue to be ignored as usual.

It's human nature to want to look at young pretty women.

I didn’t write “only”.