Personally, I feel that specifically for writing, the whole follower concept is somehow outdated and suboptimal. Take for example a publication such as the New Yorker magazine. I love their articles. I can spend three hours reading one of their longer ones. But I can't name one author. This isn't to say that an author can't be super interesting. But it does indicate, to me at least, that unless a person is an editor or reads books for a living, it's not really possible (in a very practical way, time-wise) to get deeply engaged with the actual authors. It's kind of similar with music. Sure, if you are really, really into music you will research bands and know about the bands themselves and their histories. But for the vast majority of people who enjoy music, engaging solely with the content suffices not only for reveling in the pieces, but for the purpose of enjoying music as a whole. Same with writing and reading. I enjoy reading. It doesn't mean I have to devote time to reading about the authors or following them. Each piece of content is the main contribution of a writer to the common act of reading, not the author's persona. This is why I think the concept of followers is deeply flawed. I've recently (past 24h) engaged in the act of deliberately reaching 100 followers, but obviously because I wish to be compensated for the consistent readership I have attained, despite not having a lot of followers.