That's a serious critique, and it's one that philosophers, economists, and sociologists have made in different ways.

The "attention economy" rewards the ability to attract and hold attention, not necessarily the ability to create the most value. Charisma, storytelling, confidence, and emotional appeal are often better predictors of visibility than competence or wisdom.

Some examples illustrate this:

• A mediocre entrepreneur with exceptional communication skills may raise millions, while a brilliant engineer struggles to get funding.
• An entertaining commentator can become influential despite shallow expertise.
• A scientist may spend decades making important discoveries that receive little public recognition because they aren't engaging on social media.

This isn't because charisma and merit are negatively correlated—they often aren't. Some highly capable people are also excellent communicators. The problem is that the correlation is weak enough that attention becomes an unreliable proxy for merit.

Economists sometimes summarize this as markets rewarding what they can observe. Merit is often difficult to measure:

• How creative is someone?
• How wise are they?
• How much long-term value will they produce?

Attention, by contrast, is immediately measurable through clicks, views, followers, and engagement. Platforms optimize for those metrics because they're easy to quantify and monetize.

That said, there is another side to the argument. Communication itself has value. If you discover something important but cannot persuade anyone to adopt it, society benefits less than if someone can spread and implement the idea. Charisma isn't merely decoration—it can be an economically productive skill. A great teacher, leader, or salesperson creates value largely through communication.

The injustice arises when presentation overwhelms substance. If two people have equally valuable ideas but one is much more charismatic, it may be reasonable for the better communicator to have a larger impact. But if someone with much poorer ideas consistently outcompetes someone with much better ideas solely because they command more attention, then the allocation of influence—and often income—appears disconnected from deservingness.

This connects to a broader philosophical point: many rewards in society depend on traits people did not choose. Natural intelligence, attractiveness, charisma, height, family background, and health all affect success, yet none are earned in the moral sense. Political philosophers like John Rawls argued that these "natural lotteries" challenge the idea that market outcomes reflect moral desert. Markets are good at allocating resources according to supply, demand, and incentives, but they are not designed to reward virtue or deservingness.

So your claim could be sharpened into something like:

The attention economy systematically rewards visibility rather than merit. Because charisma and rhetorical ability are only weakly correlated with the intrinsic value of a person's deservingness, potential or contributions, influence and economic rewards often become detached from deservingness.

Whether that makes the system unjust depends on what standard of justice you adopt—but it's a coherent and widely discussed criticism. 

The short answer is that the attention economy is much older than the internet. What has changed is its scale and efficiency.

The concept

The term "attention economy" was popularized by Michael H. Goldhaber in the late 1990s, but the underlying idea dates back decades.

In 1971, Herbert A. Simon observed:

"A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention."

His point was that as information becomes abundant, human attention becomes the scarce resource. This insight is considered the intellectual foundation of the attention economy.

But the phenomenon is much older

Humans have always competed for attention because attention brings status, influence, and resources.

In different eras:

• Ancient Greece: Orators like Demosthenes gained political power through persuasive speech.
• Ancient Rome: Politicians staged public spectacles and triumphs to capture popular attention.
• Medieval Europe: Preachers attracted followers through compelling sermons.
• The printing press (15th century): Writers and pamphleteers competed for readers' attention.
• Newspapers (18th–19th centuries): Publishers learned that sensational headlines sold more copies.
• Radio (20th century): Broadcasters competed for listeners.
• Television (mid-20th century): Ratings became the dominant measure of success, encouraging increasingly engaging—and sometimes sensational—programming.

The internet didn't invent attention competition; it industrialized it.

Why the internet changed everything

Social media transformed attention into something that could be measured almost instantly.

Instead of waiting weeks for newspaper sales or TV ratings, platforms could observe:

• clicks,
• watch time,
• likes,
• shares,
• comments,
• follows,
• viewing duration.

Algorithms could then optimize content to maximize those metrics millions of times per day.

This produced a feedback loop:

1. Attention generates advertising revenue.
2. Platforms optimize for whatever captures attention.
3. Creators adapt to those incentives.
4. Users receive increasingly attention-grabbing content.

Unlike previous media, this process is personalized and continuous, making competition for attention far more intense.

Is charisma more important today?

Probably, but with an important nuance.

Before mass media, charisma influenced people locally—a village, a church, a university, or a political gathering. Today, a charismatic individual can reach millions overnight.

At the same time, digital platforms favor not just traditional charisma but also:

• emotional intensity,
• novelty,
• controversy,
• humor,
• simplicity,
• visual appeal,
• consistency.

These traits often outperform careful, nuanced, or technically accurate communication because they are better at capturing scarce attention.

A broader historical perspective

One way to think about it is that societies have gone through different economic eras:

Era	Scarce resource	Main competition
Agricultural	Land	Ownership
Industrial	Capital & labor	Production
Information	Knowledge	Access to information
Attention	Human attention	Visibility

Information has become abundant and inexpensive to produce. What remains scarce is the time and cognitive capacity people have to consume it. In that sense, today's economy is less about producing information than about winning the competition to be noticed.

So the attention economy is not a new invention but the latest stage in a long historical process. Humans have always competed for attention because it confers influence and opportunity. What is unprecedented is that modern digital platforms have made attention measurable, tradable, and optimizable at a global scale, turning it into one of the most valuable economic resources in the world.