If you own a phone and are active on social media, chances are you will have heard of the term rage-bait: ‘online content deliberately designed to provoke anger or outrage to drive engager clicks, and/or revenue’. Social media can be seen as a blessing, giving platforms and exposure to first-world issues many people would otherwise be oblivious to, but that does not always merit positive reactions. Instead, many fame and money-incentivised media figures utilise these issues simply as content to be exploited. Gen-Z is often stereotyped as ‘super-woke’ or ‘snowflakes’ by older generations and while this has led to increased education and support of causes, such high levels of online political engagement make us a target. With an enlarged morality and sense of activism, these online figures who seek to spread negativity are provided with the perfect, successful formula to provoke outrage and thus gain media exposure.
Everyone wants clout. The dopamine of seeing likes on your posts or comments on your videos is only substantiated as it reaches a wider audience, but with the oversaturation of the influencer sphere it is proving more difficult to achieve engagement with regular content. So here comes the big cop out. Unlike influencers who funnel money into doing hauls or showcasing experiences, rage-bait content doesn’t cost you money- just your morals and reputation (in the eyes of most). Not only does it not cost money, on platforms like TikTok, videos that reach a certain number of views unlock monetisation, further incentivising people to spread their damaging opinions.
While there are many examples across the internet, the ones that caught my eye were people actively betraying their identities in order to push rage-bait videos. One TikTok figure I came across consistently puts out anti-trans and homophobic content under a series titled ‘Things That are Way Too Woke for Me’, amassing over 50 million views across various videos. However, he identifies as a gay man himself. Having a member of the queer community agreeing with and perpetuating such damaging views only furthers the opposition, with comments suggesting that their views are right if ‘one of them’, also agrees. Upon further inspection, I found that in one of his videos he suggested rage-bait was ‘fun’ and simply ‘all for content’. This presents a major issue, whether the person truly believes in this rhetoric or merely abused it for content, they are able to absolve themselves of moral responsibility for spreading these views with the ‘just content’ argument.
The thing that becomes abundantly clear when looking at these figures is they do not care. Whether a figure who proclaims God ‘blessed her with 10 million followers to further her Zionist agenda’, actually means what she’s saying is irrelevant. Content being dog-eared as rage-bait does not redact these opinions from being shared, nor does it remove the violent comments agreeing, or delete the reposts sharing the corrosion. The damage is done. Videos of this nature are often flooded with comments expressing distaste, anger or even willingness to educate the poster; ultimately, this means nothing. Opposing their views and standing up for what is correct is exactly what they want you to do because this generates clicks and interest on their posts, and chances are they don’t even read the comments. They are not bothered that 11 people have unfollowed them because they may have just earned $400 off a video.
It is a huge disrespect that the suffering of marginalised communities can be reduced to profitable entertainment. Rage-bait may be dismissed as ‘just content’, but its consequences extend beyond the screen, normalising prejudice and misinformation to a wider audience that extends to impressionable young children. The responsibility cannot rest solely on the individuals producing this content, as viewers, we must learn to recognise that outrage is often the product being sold to us. Interacting with these videos may feel effective but it also benefits the creator. The most effective response is often to refuse the engagement that fuels this cycle: report harmful content, challenge misinformation in meaningful spaces and ultimately, avoid giving provocateurs the attention they are seeking.