Sure, the reach and scale is much bigger. But I still don't see how that distinguishes an influencer from a celebrity.

We've had celebrities since before electricity. The reach and scale of print was greater than word of mouth, the reach and scale of radio was greater than print, the reach and scale of TV was greater than radio. The internet is just another expansion of scope, but it's the same culture underneath. Never before have we felt the need to come up with a new word for celebrity.

You could have argued at one point that the internet gives everyone an equal chance to become famous and influential. But even that is less true every day as agencies are increasingly required to stand out in an increasingly saturated market.

I strongly dispute that celebrities need talent to get noticed too. That's never been true.

Basically point is that, yes, all celebrities can be influencers, but not all influencers are anything I'd classify as "celebrities". There is a whole section in the article on "nano influencers", e.g. think "popular kid in school", not "rock star". Being able to monetize that level of popularity is a new thing.

I'm still not seeing much of a distinction. Celebrities got famous because they were popular and were then able to monetize that. I kind of get where you're coming from, but if there is a distinction to be made, it's not this.