I have nothing against someone doing promotional work to earn money to live, but I do have a problem with people portraying a totally fake and unrealistic life as a reality.
They are simply responding to what people want to see. If people wanted to see real life then that's what people would give them.
People want inspiration and to feel like they are associating (by liking and commenting) with people they aspire to be like. That's nothing new, that's basic human behavior.
Is this 'celebrity culture' gone wild though? People regard other people more highly if they are 'celebrities', therefore even if the average Joe or Jane Schmoe is perceived as a 'celebrity' then they are automatically worthy of more recognition that your peers?
Does the movie, TV, music and magazine industry have something to answer for when a person is famous for just being famous, whereas people who do meaningful, life changing/saving work are just glossed over?
Implicit in your question though is the proposition that there is an objective hierarchy of what is "meaningful."
One could argue that what Lady Gaga and Truman Capote did for the LGBT movement was/is meaningful perhaps contextually moreso than what you or I might consider the more meaningful work of eg. Margaret Hamilton.
I agree that there is such a hierarchy but it's not uniformly agreed upon.
They are simply responding to what people want to see. If people wanted to see real life then that's what people would give them.
People want inspiration and to feel like they are associating (by liking and commenting) with people they aspire to be like. That's nothing new, that's basic human behavior.