Clickbait headlines are getting out of control

AI might be able to do many things, but the art of coming up with clickbait headlines is uniquely human.

And it’s getting worse.

The term often gets misapplied. For every link that shows up on social media or in search engines, the outlet that posted it hopes someone will click on it. But there’s a difference between enticing engagement through transparency and candor and luring folks to click on an article by making it seem like something it isn’t.

That’s clickbait. The link to the article is presented in a way that’s misleading or confusing. The tipping point for me came this morning, when I saw this ridiculous headline from SI.com: “Steelers Intentionally Cut Super Bowl Winning QB.”

“What the hell is that?” was my reaction, with a four-letter word other than hell. I clicked it mainly because I had no idea what it meant.

Inside was six-paragraphs of word slaw framed around quarterback Chris Oladokun saying on a podcast that Steelers coach Mike Tomlin cut him earlier than necessary in 2022 to give him a chance to land elsewhere.

And while Oladukon, who ended up in Kansas City but has never played in a game that counts (he’s been on the active roster only once), has two more Super Bowl rings than Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Jim Kelly, and Fran Tarkenton, and Warren Moon combined, Oladukon is hardly a “Super Bowl winning quarterback.”

I don't know if it is worse or not. Stupid, enticing leads that are at least a waste of time and at most clickbait have been around for a very long time. All the more so in the doldrums before camp begins.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

I have adopted a policy of not clicking on any news post when the "net" of the article in not in the lede.

I also have a theory about entire advertising model which Facebook, YouTube, et alia earn obscene amounts of revenue.

Their models are based on the supposition that "a view" is worth X amount, let's say, $.005. I believe that human brains have adjusted to the intrusion of subliminal advertising and have conditioned themselves to avoid peripheral (and even straight-up) advertising, such that the real value is exponentially less, perhaps $.0005 per view. Think of all the NASCAR silliness with dozens of logos. I do not understand the mind of a NASCAR fan, but I am sure seeing logos will not effect whether or not they go to McDonalds 4 times a week...they are going.

Further, I think that advertisers will discover that their intrusive ads have a negative effect on the viewer as we find it irritating to be bothered by these unwelcome intrusions.

My son has me use the brave browser, which I think is basically Chrome, but refreshingly, I don't see most of the ads.

Originally Posted by: Martha Careful 

I'm not sure if I told my Dad about Brave, or he found it on his own. Either way, it's what he uses.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

I guess I have to learn more about Brave browser now, how does it compare with duckduckgo?

Originally Posted by: beast