This Title is Clickbait, and I Desperately Want Attention

Originally, this article was titled “When You Desperately Want Attention: How DEI Ruined Val,” which didn’t reflect what would actually be discussed in the article. The title would prove as an example of a common method of deception known as clickbait, in which an author chooses a headline that may interest the reader in one topic, yet has little relevance to the work’s content. Unfortunately, I was told that The Amherst Student’s policy doesn’t allow for clickbait, so I changed the title to reflect the article more accurately. In obvious attempts to deceive an audience with clickbait, like this article, I imagine most would choose to click off the articles or videos once they realize the creators have wasted their time. What if, though, the reader didn’t know they were being deceived? What happens when people sincerely engage with work that has no intention of invoking conversation, but rather pushes a personal or professional agenda?

We can think of intentional deception as including not only the aforementioned clickbait, but rage-bait, too. Rage-bait — when you mess with a friend to spark an angry reaction out of them — generally refers to any form of inflammatory content with the sole purpose of provoking outrage. Rage-bait and clickbait are somewhat similar, by using an intentional, unethical method to garner attention. One difference that comes to mind, though, is that clickbait is always false advertising with its title, while rage-bait can sometimes discuss something truthful and real. The unethical point in rage-bait is the irritation people gain from consuming the content and the results thereafter. The content is designed to make you feel anger and use that emotion to earn clicks, likes, and any monetizable gains. 

One example is TikTok influencer Winta Zesu, who is known for making content by confronting rude people at events with provocative, and sometimes true, titles. The content, while not entirely false, is made to make the audience feel outraged, creating greater engagement. While it’s not wrong to make your content all about rageful and provoking situations, it’s also not right. What was completely wrong, though, was when Zesu fabricated a story about two girls whispering in the background of a video, stating they were gossiping about her. Complete fabrication, or even exaggeration, of sensitive, anger-provoking topics is nowhere near good, faithful content. An author could talk about a very sensitive topic, spark outrage, and still make the content feel like it merited meaningful discussion. The problem arises when the authors deliberately go out of their way to choose these sensitive topics, make the most inflammatory content based on them, and then continue profiting off people’s emotions. 

When someone deliberately makes provocative claims and content, especially in the monetizable world of social media, we use another term called grifting. The people who grift, known as grifters, are those who pretend to hold certain beliefs, especially in the political sense, to collect views, earn money, and advance their careers. Grifters can range from a small-town writer who pretends to believe in a specific  ideology to gain support, to big-time politicians tricking voters into believing that they represent some set of policies when they, in fact, do not. In such situations, their followers believe they are engaging with someone who represents either a supporting or opposing belief and would want to participate in a good-faith debate with this person, only to find that they actually stand to benefit from their own actions. 

Grifting combines elements of clickbait and rage-bait, while adding its own spin to the deceiving content. Sometimes the beliefs grifters hold are meant to spark outrage and garner attention through the anger felt either by one side of the issue or both sides. By having a flexible belief system, grifters can profit from manipulating people’s emotions with the only worry that they may lose some of their base if they take on a certain opposing belief. Even then, sometimes taking on that opposing belief can spark the right amount of attention for the grifter, gaining more attention from the opposing side than what was lost.

Regarding clickbait in grifting, it’s obviously much more difficult to tell what clickbait is. Grifters will often put together content that may market itself as an argument for or against one issue, yet fail to adequately make that argument. Some may see this as just poor craftsmanship by the authors, but it is, in fact, a systematic choice. By making a weaker, or sometimes incoherent, argument, the content that originally marketed itself as a good-faith, merited discussion about one issue doesn’t even truly address that issue. The content is clickbaiting and fooling you into believing that it’s talking about an issue when it’s just a cleverly designed ruse. The work’s title says it’s about an issue and the inner content looks like it’s talking about the issue, but, in reality, it’s not actually addressing the issue at all. It will simply skate around the heart of the argument and touch on the topics that spark the most interest and reactions.

Now, I do want to clarify that when I refer to deceptive work, I’m mainly talking about work that’s intentionally misleading. That is not to deny that an author or creator can unintentionally mislead an audience. These creators could be uninformed or misinformed, discussing topics with information that is twisted or blatantly false. If someone bases opinions on false information, then they should eventually, though begrudgingly, be willing to change such an opinion once adequately convinced of the real truth. There is hope that they can change the basis of their argument once they realize their basis was, indeed, based on misinformation. I have no issues with those who unintentionally deceive, although it can be a hindrance to progressing conversations. I do, however, have a major issue with those who intentionally mislead audiences. 

It’s really easy to point out these deceitful practices on paper, but when reading an article or watching a video on TikTok, it can be hard to pinpoint someone’s motives in creating inflammatory statements. There is nothing wrong with creating controversial content; it’s honestly the biggest indicator that content may be good — it’s thought-provoking! What’s wrong is when such work doesn’t change. When it is unreceptive to feedback and fails to think critically about and better its arguments. What was once something that sparked conversation among people now just regurgitates talking points that get many people riled up — the intent is no longer, or never was, to provoke thought, but to merely provoke. 

There is nothing new about con artists and scams, but their methods are constantly evolving as people, hopefully, learn. I see bright young people falling for very simple tricks, engaging with content that clearly doesn’t mean to encourage good-faith debate and discussion. I can see, even now, that my peers could hypothetically read an article critiquing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), which brings up common talking points that seem related but have nothing to do with DEI, like this article. I hope that by that point you may start to realize that this article, claiming to be about DEI, was, indeed, clickbait, rage-bait, and a grift. If you try your best to bring up counterarguments and opposing ideas, and get no response back, it’s likely a grift. If the response does come, and fails to address any opposing arguments, and instead tries to diminish the opponent by ad hominem and other logical fallacies, it’s likely a grift. If you’re reading inflammatory work today, unfortunately, it’s more likely than not, a grift.

If you come to realize that you may be interacting with a deceitful piece of content, step away and don’t give it any more thought. These cons do not deserve your attention, thoughtfulness, or money. The next time you see someone desperately begging for your attention, think about whether giving them that attention would benefit you in any regard, and if it wouldn’t, don’t give it. Deceitful content is and always will be all around us; what matters is our response to it. Don’t fall for the bait; don’t give in to hate.