Winta Zesu reveals how anger-driven engagement fuels her success in the digital world.
Rage-Baiting: The Business of Outrage on Social Media
Rage-Baiting: The Business of Outrage on Social Media
Exploring the controversial trend of rage-baiting and its lucrative appeal for content creators.
Rage-baiting has emerged as a profitable strategy for social media creators like Winta Zesu, who made $150,000 last year largely through anger-driven engagement. At just 24, she captures attention by deliberately invoking strong, negative reactions among her followers. With content centered around her life as a glamorous New York City model, Winta embraces the criticism that floods her comment sections. She explains, “Every single video of mine that has gained millions of views is because of hate comments.”
This phenomenon of creating content that sparks outrage or anger has grown considerably, especially as social media platforms incentivize creators for engagement. Marketing podcaster Andrea Jones highlights the difference between rage baiting and clickbait: while the former is manipulative and often harmful, the latter is merely enticing. According to Dr. William Brady, a psychology expert, such negative content taps into our innate tendencies, compelling us to engage more deeply, even if it’s detrimental to our well-being.
The rise in rage-baiting coincides with social media’s rewarding systems for creators, which favors posts that generate higher engagement metrics, often leading to misleading or sensational content. “If we see something shocking, we’re more inclined to comment,” says Jones, noting that this form of interaction is seen as more valuable by algorithms than simple likes or shares. The dynamics of these systems encourage creators to push the envelope to maximize their earnings, even at the cost of fostering a toxic online environment.
The trend has infiltrated political discourse, particularly in the lead-up to major elections. Brady argues that such tactics effectively mobilize political bases but result in news cycles heavy on outrage rather than informative content. Misinformation thrives as users find themselves caught in a cycle of emotionally charged content, leading to significant “news avoidance” among the public, according to communication experts.
Concerns extend beyond just the online realm; they hint at a troubling normalization of anger in everyday life and its potential erosion of trust in media. Social platforms struggle under the weight of their algorithms, with extreme content often amplified beyond its actual following. Responses from major platforms regarding the issues of rage-baiting remain elusive, although leaders in tech like Meta's Adam Mosseri acknowledge the rise of engagement-bait practices.
As Winta Zesu reflects on the intersection of her content and politics, she draws the line at using rage bait for political agendas. While she supports education and informed discussion, she strongly opposes spreading misinformation, noting the serious implications of such actions in today's digital landscape. "It's not a joke anymore,” she emphasizes, encapsulating the struggle between engagement and responsibility that defines the current state of social media.
This phenomenon of creating content that sparks outrage or anger has grown considerably, especially as social media platforms incentivize creators for engagement. Marketing podcaster Andrea Jones highlights the difference between rage baiting and clickbait: while the former is manipulative and often harmful, the latter is merely enticing. According to Dr. William Brady, a psychology expert, such negative content taps into our innate tendencies, compelling us to engage more deeply, even if it’s detrimental to our well-being.
The rise in rage-baiting coincides with social media’s rewarding systems for creators, which favors posts that generate higher engagement metrics, often leading to misleading or sensational content. “If we see something shocking, we’re more inclined to comment,” says Jones, noting that this form of interaction is seen as more valuable by algorithms than simple likes or shares. The dynamics of these systems encourage creators to push the envelope to maximize their earnings, even at the cost of fostering a toxic online environment.
The trend has infiltrated political discourse, particularly in the lead-up to major elections. Brady argues that such tactics effectively mobilize political bases but result in news cycles heavy on outrage rather than informative content. Misinformation thrives as users find themselves caught in a cycle of emotionally charged content, leading to significant “news avoidance” among the public, according to communication experts.
Concerns extend beyond just the online realm; they hint at a troubling normalization of anger in everyday life and its potential erosion of trust in media. Social platforms struggle under the weight of their algorithms, with extreme content often amplified beyond its actual following. Responses from major platforms regarding the issues of rage-baiting remain elusive, although leaders in tech like Meta's Adam Mosseri acknowledge the rise of engagement-bait practices.
As Winta Zesu reflects on the intersection of her content and politics, she draws the line at using rage bait for political agendas. While she supports education and informed discussion, she strongly opposes spreading misinformation, noting the serious implications of such actions in today's digital landscape. "It's not a joke anymore,” she emphasizes, encapsulating the struggle between engagement and responsibility that defines the current state of social media.
