6 ms·
They could have said what happens next in just as many characters, but chose not to. I assume the reason is because fewer people would read the article in that
by mgraczyk 4y ago
They could have said what happens next in just as many characters, but chose not to. I assume the reason is because fewer people would read the article in that case.
- toxicFork 4y agoThat sounds like the opposite of click bait. Not revealing something that would make people have aversion. I don't know if it has a name.
- tpoacher 4y agoIt does. It's called clickbait. :p If you'd like to clearly differentiate it from a more stringent definition of clickbait, I guess one could call it clickbait by omission. It's like when you pretend to have thrown a nut to a squirrel, but in reality you just made a gesture. The squirrel will go look for the nut regardless. You not throwing a 'decoy' nut isn't the important part w.r.t. the desired outcome. You still 'baited' them.
- knighthack 4y agoClickbait is just as often about half-truths, or omissions. Anything that leads to a reader/viewer asking "Why?/What?", and which triggers the human curiosity that leads to a click - constitutes clickbait. Such content may later disappoint or cause annoyance to the reader/viewer; but they still clicked, which is all that matters.
- renonce 4y agoI would refer to Veritasium's opinion on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng
- chakhs 4y agoalways failed to see how normalizing clickbaits is for the greater good. more like for better income, which I could understand