Rage-baiting
In internet slang, rage-baiting (also rage-farming) is the manipulative tactic of eliciting outrage with the goal of increasing internet traffic, online engagement, revenue and support.[1][2] Rage baiting or farming can be used as a tool to increase engagement, attract subscribers, followers, and supporters, which can be financially lucrative.[3] Rage baiting and rage farming manipulates users to respond in kind to offensive, inflammatory headlines, memes, tropes, or comments.[4][5][6][7]
Rage-farming, which has been cited since at least January 2022, is an offshoot of rage-baiting where the outrage of the person being provoked is farmed or manipulated into an online engagement by rage-seeding that helps amplify the message of the original content creator.[2][8][9] It has also been used as a political tactic at the expense of one's opponent.
Political scientist Jared Wesley of the University of Alberta stated in 2022 that the use of the tactic of rage farming was on the rise with right-wing politicians employing the technique by "promoting conspiracy theories and misinformation." As politicians increase rage farming against their political and ideological opponents, they attract more followers online, some of whom may engage in offline violence, including verbal violence and acts of intimidation. Wesley describes how those engaged in rage farming combine half-truths with "blatant lies".[10]
The wider concept of posting generally provocative content to encourage user interaction is known as engagement farming.[11]
Etymology, definitions and related terms
[edit]Rage farming is from rage + farm. Rage-seeding, rage-bait, rage baiting, and outrage baiting are similar Internet slang neologisms referring to manipulative tactics that feed on readers' anxieties and fears. They are all forms of clickbait, a term used since c. 1999, which is "more nuanced" and not necessarily seen as a negative tactic.[12][13] The term rage bait, which has been cited since at least 2009, is a negative form of click-baiting as it relies on manipulating users to respond in kind to offensive, inflammatory "headlines", memes, tropes, or comments.[4][5][6][7]
In his 2022 tweet, a senior researcher at Citizen Lab, John Scott-Railton, described how a person was "being rage-farmed" when they responded to an inflammatory post with an equally inflammatory quote tweet as quote tweets reward the original rage tweet. Algorithms on social media such as Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube were discovered to reward increased positive and negative engagement by directing traffic to posts and amplifying them.[1]
In an Atlantic article on Republican strategy, American writer Molly Jong-Fast described rage farming as "the product of a perfect storm of fuckery, an unholy mélange of algorithms and anxiety".[2]
Political scientist Jared Wesley wrote that rage farming was often "used to describe rhetoric designed to elicit the rage of opponents."[8] Rage-baiting is used to describe a tactic to attract, maintain, and increase a base of supporters and followers.[7]
Clickbait, in all its iterations, including rage-baiting and farming, is a form of media manipulation, specifically Internet manipulation. While the goal of some clickbait is to generate revenue, it can also be used as effective tactic to influence people on social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.[12] According to a November 2016 analysis of Facebook, clickbaits are intentionally designed to a targeted interest group's pre-existing confirmation biases. Facebook's algorithms used a filter bubble that shares specific posts to a filtered audience.[14]
A Westside Seattle Herald article published May 2016 cited the definition from the online Urban Dictionary, "a post on social media by a news organisation designed expressly to outrage as many people as possible in order to generate interaction."[5][6] The Herald article described how increased user traffic online results equals in more revenue for online platforms and websites from paid advertisements and sponsors.[6]
A May 25, 2016 article described ragebait as "clickbait's evil twin."[4]
A 2006 article in Time magazine described how Internet trolls post incendiary comments online with the sole purpose of provoking an argument even on the most banal topics. A statement like "NASCAR is about as much a sport as cheerleading" in a car-racing forum or openly supporting open borders to Lou Dobbs is cited as an example.[15]
Rage bait and outrage bait creators invent "controversial news stories out of thin air".[16] The example cited was a 15 December 2018 Irish digital media company ad falsely claiming that two thirds of people wanted Santa to be either female or gender neutral.[16]
As early as 2012, research suggested that in both media and politics, eliciting outrage is a powerful tool in media manipulation.[17][18] In political media, both real and imagined outrage attract readers, making rage-evoking narratives very popular.[18]
Background
[edit]A 2012 Journal of Politics (JOP) article found that political actors were intentionally incorporating emotional content to evoke anxiety into their messaging to elicit interest in a topic.[17] The article questioned why this political tactic resulted in viewers feeling more anger than anxiety. The study found that anger increased information-seeking behaviour and often resulted in web users clicking on the political website to learn more.[17] The research said there were also psychological incentives to use angry rhetoric in political communication.[17] A 2018 Media Matters for America article citing the JOP journal, reiterated that "anger is a powerful tool in the worlds of both politics and media."[18] The political media industry knows that real or imagined outrage attracts readers making narratives that evoke it very popular in political media.[18]
A November 2018 National Review article decrying social-justice warriors was cited as an example of rage-baiting by Media Matters for America.[19][18] The Review article was in response to Tweets criticizing the cartoon image used by the ABC's Twitter account to advertise A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving on November 21, 2018.[19] Franklin, the Black friend was sitting all alone on one side of Charlie Brown's Thanksgiving dinner table.[19] Several unverified accounts by Twitter users, including one with zero followers, called the image racist.[18] Conservatives were so frustrated by these overly sensitive, politically correct, "snowflake" liberals who posted, that they in turn responded in anger. The Media Matters for America article said that there was irony in the way in which the National Review article which intended to illustrate how liberals were too easily provoked to anger, actually succeeded in enraging conservatives.[18]
Information technologies and digital media enable unprecedented capacities for online manipulation,[20] including click-baiting, rage baiting and rage farming. In his January 7, 2022 tweet, John Scott-Railton described how a person was "being rage farmed" when they responded to an inflammatory post with an equally inflammatory quote tweet since algorithms on Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook and other social media platforms, reward posts that attract engagement by amplifying the posts.[1]
A 2020 review of the conservative Canadian online news magazine, The Post Millennial, which was started in 2017, said it was far-right America's most recent rage-baiting outlet.[21]
Examples of rage farming
[edit]Social media
[edit]Rage farming and rage baiting are most recent iterations of clickbait and other forms of Internet manipulation that use conspiracy theories and misinformation to fuel anger and engage users. Facebook has been "blamed for fanning sectarian hatred, steering users toward extremism and conspiracy theories, and incentivizing politicians to take more divisive stands," according to a 2021 Washington Post report.[22] In spite of previous reports on changes to its News Feed algorithms to reduce clickbait, revelations by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen and content from the 2021 Facebook leak, informally referred to as the Facebook Papers, provide evidence of the role the company's News Feed algorithm had played.[22]
Media and governmental investigations in the wake of revelations from Facebook whistleblower, Frances Haugen, and the 2021 Facebook leak, provide insight into the role various algorithms play in farming outrage for profit by spreading divisiveness, conspiracy theories and sectarian hatred that can allegedly contribute to real-world violence.[22] A highly criticized example was when Facebook, with over 25 million accounts in Myanmar, neglected to police rage-inducing hate speech posts targeting the Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar that allegedly facilitated the Rohingya genocide.[23][24][25][9][26][27] In 2021, a US$173 billion class action lawsuit filed against Meta Platforms Inc (the new name of Facebook) on behalf of Rohingya refugees claimed that Facebook's "algorithms amplified hate speech."[23]
In response to complaints about clickbait on Facebook's News Feed and News Feed ranking algorithm, in 2014 and again in 2016, the company introduced an anti-clickbait algorithm to remove sites from their News Feed that frequently use headlines that "withhold, exaggerate or distort information."[28]
A February 2019 article that was promoted in Facebook described how outrage bait made people angry "on purpose".[16] Digital media companies and social media actors incite outrage to increase engagement; "clicks, comments, likes and shares", which generate "more advertising revenue".[16] If content does not increase engagement, "timeline algorithm" limits the number of users that this uninteresting content can reach.[16] According to this article, when geared up on its war against clickbait, algorithm changed, which made it harder for creators and sites to use clickbait. The article said that a new engagement strategy was introduced to replace clickbait, whether rage bait or outrage bait.[16]
The 2016 algorithms were allegedly trained to filter phrases that were frequently used in clickbait headlines similar to filters that remove email spam.[28] Publishers who continue to use clickbait were allegedly punished through loss of referral traffic.[28]
Starting in 2017, Facebook engineers changed their ranking algorithm to score emoji reactions five times higher than mere "likes" because emojis extended user engagement, according to a 26 October 2021 Washington Post article. Facebook's business model depended on keeping and increasing user engagement.[29] One of Facebook's researchers raised concerns that the algorithms that rewarded "controversial" posts including those that incited outrage, could inadvertently result in more spam, abuse, and clickbait.[29]
Since 2018, Facebook executives had been warned in a slide presentation that their algorithms promoted divisiveness but they refused to act.[30] In a 2022 interview Scott-Railton had observed that the amplification by algorithms of these inflammatory quote tweets in rage farming that looped upon themselves may have been planned and structural or accidental.[2] Algorithms reward positive and negative engagement. This creates a "genuine dilemma for everyone". Algorithms also allow politicians to bypass legacy media outlets that fact-check, by giving them access to a targeted uncritical audience who are very receptive of their messaging, even when it is misinformation.[18]
By 2019, Facebook's data scientists confirmed that posts that incited the angry emoji were "disproportionately likely to include misinformation, toxicity and low-quality news."[29]
The 2020 Netflix docudrama The Social Dilemma analyzed how social media was intentionally designed for profit maximization through Internet manipulation which can include spreading conspiracy theories and disinformation and promoting problematic social media use.[31] Topics covered in the film included the role of social media in political polarization in the United States, political radicalization, including online youth radicalization, the spread of fake news and as a propaganda tool used by political parties and governmental bodies. Social media networks have three main goals: to maintain and increase engagement, growth, and advertisement income, according to a former Google design ethicist.[32]
A 2024 Rolling Stone article discusses the rise of "rage-bait" influencers on TikTok who create content designed to provoke anger and generate engagement. Influencers such as Winta Zesu and Louise Melcher produce staged, controversial videos that often go viral across multiple platforms, drawing in viewers who may not realize the content is fabricated.[33]
Facebook outside the United States
[edit]A 2021 report by The Washington Post revealed that Facebook did not adequately police its service outside the United States.[25] The company invested only 16% of its budget in fighting misinformation and hate speech in countries outside the United States, such as France, Italy, and India where English is not the maternal language. In contrast, the company allocated 84% to the United States which only represents 10% of Facebook's daily users.[9]
Since at least 2019, Facebook employees were aware of how "vulnerable these countries, like India, were to "abuse by bad actors and authoritarian regimes" but did nothing to block accounts that published hate speech and incited violence.[9] In their 2019 434-page report submitted to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, the role of social media in disseminating hate speech and inciting violence in the anti-Muslim riots and the Rohingya genocide was investigated. Facebook was mentioned 289 times in the report as there are millions of Facebook accounts in that country.[26] Following the publication of an earlier version of the report in August, Facebook took the "rare step" of removing accounts that represented 12 million followers implicated in the reports findings.[24]
In October 2021, Haugen testified at a United States Senate committee that Facebook had been inciting ethnic violence in Myanmar which has over 25 million Facebook users, and in Ethiopia through its algorithms that promoted posts inciting or glorifying violence. False claims about Muslims stockpiling weapons were not removed. [25]
The Digital Services Act is a European legislative proposal to strengthen rules on fighting disinformation and harmful content, that was submitted by the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union partially in response to concerns raised by the Facebook Files and revelations in Haugen's testimony in the European Parliament.[27] In 2021, a c$. US 173 billion dollar class action lawsuit was lodged by law firms Edelson PC and Fields PLLC against Meta Platforms Inc, formerly known as Facebook in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of Rohinga refugees, claiming that Facebook was negligent in not removing inflammatory posts that facilitated the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar. The lawsuit said that Facebook's "algorithms amplified hate speech."[23]
Following its launch in Myanmar in 2011, Facebook "quickly became ubiquitous."[23] A report commissioned by Facebook led to the company's admission in 2018, that they had failed to do "enough to prevent the incitement of violence and hate speech against the [...]Muslim minority in Myanmar." The independent report found that "Facebook has become a means for those seeking to spread hate and cause harm, and posts have been linked to offline violence".[23]
See also
[edit]- Betteridge's law of headlines – Journalistic adage on questions in headlines
- Chumbox – Form of online advertising
- Digital display advertising – Type of advertising
- Griefer
- Hot take
- Outrage porn
- Sealioning
- Sensationalism
- Sticky content – Style of web content
- Viral marketing – Marketing strategy that uses existing social networks to promote a product
- Yellow journalism – Sensationalistic news
References
[edit]- ^ a b c Scott-Railton 2022.
- ^ a b c d Jong-Fast 2022.
- ^ Thompson 2013.
- ^ a b c Ashworth 2016.
- ^ a b c Jeans 2014.
- ^ a b c d Hom 2015.
- ^ a b c Dastner 2021.
- ^ a b Wesley 2022.
- ^ a b c d Zakrzewski et al. 2021.
- ^ Rusnell 2022.
- ^ Starr, Michael (19 April 2024). "Activists: Elon Musk should review Jackson Hinkle for fake X engagement". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 9 October 2024.
- ^ a b Frampton 2015.
- ^ Nygma 2009.
- ^ Ohlheiser 2016.
- ^ Cox 2006.
- ^ a b c d e f ThisInterestsMe 2019.
- ^ a b c d Ryan 2012.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Rainie et al. 2022.
- ^ a b c Timpf 2018.
- ^ Susser, Roessler & Nissenbaum 2019.
- ^ Holt 2020.
- ^ a b c Oremus et al. 2021.
- ^ a b c d e Milmo 2021.
- ^ a b Mahtani 2018.
- ^ a b c Akinwotu 2021.
- ^ a b OHCHR 2018.
- ^ a b European Parliament 2021.
- ^ a b c Constine 2016.
- ^ a b c Merrill & Oremus 2021.
- ^ Seetharaman & Horwitz 2020.
- ^ Ehrlich 2020.
- ^ Orlowski 2020.
- ^ Jones, C T (27 February 2024). "These Influencers Are Making Content to Make You Angry — And It's Working". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 1 September 2024.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Sources
[edit]- Akinwotu, Emmanuel (7 October 2021). "Facebook's role in Myanmar and Ethiopia under new scrutiny". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 September 2022.
- Anderson, Drew (2 September 2022). "Canada's push to reduce fertilizer emissions is causing outrage and fuelling conspiracy theories". The Narwhal. Retrieved 2 September 2022.
- Ashworth, E.R. (19 July 2016). "Ragebait: Clickbait's Evil Twin". Ashworth's film reviews. Retrieved 3 September 2022.
- Briere, Karen (12 August 2022). "Federal ag minister tries to allay fertilizer fears". The Western Producer. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
- Butts, Gerald (8 January 2022), "It's just rage farming by — and probably for the benefit of — his social media team.", Twitter, retrieved 28 August 2022
- Climenhaga, David (28 August 2022). "The insults hurled at Chrystia Freeland Friday are nothing new: Alberta's UCP has long encouraged such abuse". Alberta Politics. Retrieved 30 August 2022.
- Constine, Josh (4 August 2016). "Facebook's new anti-clickbait algorithm buries bogus headlines". TechCrunch. Retrieved 4 September 2022.
- Cox, Ana Marie (16 December 2006). "Making Mischief on the Web". Time. Archived from the original on 13 January 2007. Retrieved 24 March 2009.
- "'This behaviour is unacceptable': Mendicino". CTV News. 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
- Dastner, Kuncan (12 March 2021). Rage Baiting: How TikTok Promotes Harmful Content. Event occurs at 0:30. Retrieved 31 August 2022.
- DeVega, Chauncey (1 November 2018). "Author David Neiwert on the outbreak of political violence". Salon. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
- Douglas, Erin (9 January 2022). "Texas GOP's voting meme shows how Trump-style messaging wins internet's attention". The Texas Tribune. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
- Ehrlich, David (29 January 2020). "'The Social Dilemma' Review: A Horrifyingly Good Doc About How Social Media Will Kill Us All". IndieWire. Archived from the original on 17 April 2020. Retrieved 12 September 2020.
- "Frances Haugen to MEPs: EU digital rules can be a game changer for the world". European Parliament. 11 August 2021. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
- Fawcett, Max (28 August 2022). "The nasty verbal assault on Chrystia Freeland tells us a lot about rage in Canadian politics". Canada's National Observer. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
- Frampton, Ben (14 September 2015). "Clickbait - the changing face of online journalism". BBC. Retrieved 1 September 2022.
- Gamble, Andrew (3 August 2018). "Taking back control: the political implications of Brexit". Journal of European Public Policy. 25 (8): 1215–1232. doi:10.1080/13501763.2018.1467952. ISSN 1350-1763. S2CID 158602299.
- Hasan, Mehdi (18 January 2022). 'Rage Farming' Is Latest GOP Tactic. The Mehdi Hasan Show. Event occurs at 13:22. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
- Holt, Jared (10 September 2020). "The Post Millennial: The Latest Canadian Outlet Serving Rage Bait to Far-Right America". Right Wing Watch. Retrieved 3 September 2022.
- Hom, Kyra-lin (25 May 2015). "Rage baiting". Westside Seattle Herald. Retrieved 3 September 2022.
- Jeans, Frank (4 June 2014). "Rage Bait". Urban Dictionary.
- Jong-Fast, Molly (12 January 2022). "Owning the Libs Is the Only GOP Platform". The Atlantic. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
- Mahtani, Shibani (27 August 2018). "U.N. report calls for Myanmar generals to be prosecuted for genocide, war crimes". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 3 September 2022.
- Mantyka, Wayne (4 August 2022). "'We use fertilizer for a reason': Poilievre pledges to fight plan to reduce emissions". Regina. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
- Merrill, Jeremy B.; Oremus, Will (26 October 2021). "Five points for anger, one for a 'like': How Facebook's formula fostered rage and misinformation". Washington Post. Retrieved 3 September 2022.
- Milmo, Dan (6 December 2021). "Rohingya sue Facebook for £150bn over Myanmar genocide". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 4 September 2022.
- Molloy, Parker (4 March 2019). "How right-wing media embrace social media-generated rage bait to drive website traffic". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 30 August 2022.
- Neiwert, David (17 October 2017). Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump. Verso Books. ISBN 978-1-78663-423-8.
- Nygma, E. (20 December 2009), "Rage baited", Urban Dictionary,
Me: Brittany Murphy will be forgotten just like any other celebrity in Hollywood. Move on Girl: You're heartless. You don't even know her. Me: You just got rage baited.
- Report of the detailed findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (Report). Human rights situations that require the Council's attention. September 2018. p. 435. Retrieved 3 September 2022. Thirty-ninth session 10–28 September 2018 Agenda item 4
- Ohlheiser, Abby (18 November 2016). "This is how Facebook's fake-news writers make money". The Washington Post. Analysis. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on 19 November 2016. Retrieved 4 September 2022.
- Oremus, Will; Alcantara, Chris; Merrill, Jeremy B.; Galocha, Artur (26 October 2021). "How Facebook shapes your feed". Washington Post. Retrieved 4 September 2022.
- Orlowski, Jeff, director (26 January 2020). The Social Dilemma. Netflix.
- Prime Minister of Canada (15 December 2021). "Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Mandate Letter". Retrieved 29 August 2022.
- Rainie, Lee; Funk, Cary; Anderson, Monica; Tyson, Alec (17 March 2022). "Mixed views about social media companies using algorithms to find false information". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved 30 August 2022.
- Rusnell, Charles (27 August 2022). "The Attack on Freeland Sprouts from 'Rage Farming'". The Tyee. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
- Ryan, Timothy J. (October 2012). "What Makes Us Click? Demonstrating Incentives for Angry Discourse with Digital-Age Field Experiments". The Journal of Politics. 74 (4): 1138–1152. doi:10.1017/S0022381612000540. ISSN 0022-3816. S2CID 146254429. Retrieved 30 August 2022.
- Seetharaman, Deepa; Horwitz, Jeff (26 May 2020). "Facebook Executives Shut Down Efforts to Make the Site Less Divisive". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
- Susser, Daniel; Roessler, Beate; Nissenbaum, Helen (1 January 2019). "Online Manipulation: Hidden Influences in a Digital World". Georgetown Law Technology Review Via Wikipedia Library. 4 (1): 1–1–46.
- Scott-Railton, John (7 January 2022), "You are being rage farmed. Your angry quote tweet = the goal.", Twitter, retrieved 28 August 2022
- Texas GOP, @TexasGOP (7 January 2022). "If you can wait in line for a Covid test, you can wait in line to vote". Twitter. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
- "What is Outrage Bait?", This Interests Me, 19 February 2019
- Thompson, Derek (14 November 2013). "Upworthy: I Thought This Website Was Crazy, but What Happened Next Changed Everything". The Atlantic.
- Timpf, Katherine (27 November 2018). "Charlie Brown Thanksgiving — No, the Peanuts Special Isn't Racist". National Review. Retrieved 30 August 2022.
- Wesley, Jared (28 August 2022). "@DuaneBratt Thanks, but I didn't coin it. It's been around for a while. Often, it's used to describe rhetoric designed to elicit the rage of opponents. I think it can be extended to material meant to gin up supporters, too. But there might be another term for that". Twitter. Retrieved 31 August 2022.
- Zakrzewski, Cat; De Vynck, Gerrit; Masih, Niha; Mahtani, Shibani (24 October 2021). "How Facebook neglected the rest of the world, fueling hate speech and violence in India". The Washington Post. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
External links
[edit]- Internet culture
- Internet slang
- Political campaign techniques
- Advertising techniques
- Anti-social behaviour
- Propaganda techniques
- Rhetoric
- Informal fallacies
- Deception
- Internet terminology
- Internet trolling
- Technology neologisms
- Media bias
- Media manipulation
- News media manipulation
- Pejorative terms related to technology