The Rise of Rage-Baiting: Profit from Anger

Rage-baiting, a provocative approach to online content creation, has proven lucrative for influencers like Winta Zesu, generating significant profits through user engagement driven by anger. While effective for reach, the impact on public discourse and mental health raises concerns about the normalization of outrage online and its consequences for social interaction and trust.

In an era of social media dominance, a new kind of content creation has emerged—rage-baiting. This strategy hinges on eliciting anger from viewers, and for influencers like Winta Zesu, it has proven to be a highly profitable venture. Last year alone, Zesu claimed to have earned $150,000 (£117,000) capitalizing on the very ire she invokes with her posts.

Zesu, a 24-year-old influencer based in New York City, specifically curates her videos to court backlash. "Every single video of mine that has gained millions of views is because of hate comments," she noted. Her online persona mimics the life of a glamorous model, navigating the trials of her supposed beauty, and often takes a satirical tone that includes absurdist commentary about her own looks.

While Zesu often faces vicious criticism—comments questioning her confidence or labeling her as less attractive—many viewers remain oblivious to the fact that she is portraying an exaggerated character. This deliberate setup is a hallmark of rage-baiting, a tactic distinct from traditional clickbait. Marketing expert and podcaster Andrea Jones elaborated, explaining that rage-baiting is characterized by its manipulativeness; it intentionally provokes outrage rather than inviting genuine engagement.

Psychological research supports the effectiveness of this method. Dr. William Brady states that our brains are wired to respond to negative content—a remnant of our evolutionary past where anger can signal danger or urgency. The content that provokes outrage tends to engage users far more deeply than benign content, which is reflected in social media algorithms favoring interactions evoked by rage.

The surge in this kind of content coincides with social media platforms incentivizing creators through various monetization programs. These platforms encourage users to generate content that sparks high engagement levels—like likes, comments, and shares—often at the cost of quality or honesty. "If we see someone doing something obscene, we may type in the comments: 'this is terrible,' which is favored by algorithms," Jones explains.

The breadth of rage-baiting content ranges from outrageous cooking tutorials to incendiary political commentary. Particularly leading up to elections, damaging discourse tends to proliferate, allowing for polarization and emotional mobilization—often devoid of substantive discussions around policies.

During critical election seasons, the prevalence of rage-baiting can spur political engagement, albeit on a foundation of outrage rather than rational discourse. Brady noted that both users and content creators often favor polarizing narratives over fact-based discussions, feeding into a cycle of negativity and disengagement from constructive political dialogue.

Concerns abound regarding the societal implications of rampant rage-baiting. Many experts warn that constant exposure to high-emotion content can lead to "news avoidance," where individuals withdraw from actively engaging with information altogether. Ariel Hazel, a communication professor at the University of Michigan, highlighted the toll that ongoing negativity can take on individuals, diminishing their overall responsiveness to current events.

The potential for rage-baiting to distort perceptions of normalcy is another troubling aspect. Dr. Brady pointed out that though extreme political sentiments are often espoused by a small subset of users, algorithms can amplify these views as though they represent a broad consensus.

Despite inquiries into the business practices around rage-baiting, leading social media platforms like X and Meta have yet to robustly address concerns surrounding the proliferation of incendiary content. With emerging changes to their monetization strategies, the future of rage-baiting remains uncertain.

Back in her New York City apartment, Zesu muses on the ethical implications of rage-baiting, especially in the political realm. While she acknowledges the fine line between engagement and misinformation, she critiques the use of outrage purely as a tool for profit. "If they're using it genuinely to educate and inform people, it's fine. But if they're using it to spread misinformation, I totally do not agree with that. It's not a joke anymore."