Against my better judgment. I could stop after five seconds, because everything about the person gets on my nerves. Sometimes even the topic does. And if only it stopped there… But no! I go on to read the comments. And not just any comments: I look for someone who agrees with me that it’s terrible, that it’s a waste of time, that nothing about it is right.
Am I weird? Nope. This is exactly the reaction rage bait is designed to provoke.
In other words, content created specifically to get a rise out of us. A provocative claim, an outrageous remark, an offensive take: the aim is to make people angry enough to keep watching. Or, better yet, to react and share.
This week, we’re taking a closer look at the topic. And, most importantly, we’ll explore how to resist these tactics and find a little more peace on our favorite social apps.
But first, if this is the first time you’re reading one of my articles, let me introduce myself. The little voice behind these words is Laureline, designer and co-founder of Jomo, a screen time app that helps you take back control of your phone. Since 2022, I’ve been sharing my thoughts, tutorials, and tips every week to help you build a healthier relationship with technology.
Ready? Let’s take a closer look at how rage bait works.
What Exactly Is Rage Bait?
According to Oxford, the earliest recorded use of the term dates back to 2002. Today, it describes online content deliberately created to provoke anger or outrage, usually to attract more traffic or engagement. Oxford even named it its Word of the Year for 2025.
But why would anyone create content specifically to make people angry? The answer is pretty depressing: to get more views, more reactions, and a shot at going viral. Clickbait plays on surprise or curiosity. Rage bait goes straight for outrage.
Chart by Oxford Languages / Oxford University Press.
Oxford’s chart shows the sharp increase in use of the term in recent years. It’s a sign that more people are recognizing and talking about the tactic.
Rage bait is no longer some obscure internet trick. It has become a widely recognized part of online culture.
How Can You Recognize Rage Bait?
Careful: not every negative or upsetting post is rage bait. Intent matters. But content designed to provoke often follows familiar patterns, with the same recipe repeated from one post to the next. Here are a few common examples:
Someone presenting an exaggerated, deliberately provocative opinion.
Someone behaving outrageously rudely.
A clip taken out of context.
Someone openly trying to provoke a particular community.
A claim that is demonstrably false.
Political content built around insults and contempt.
As humans, it’s natural to feel outraged, leave a comment, correct the facts, or come to someone’s defense. And that’s where the bait works.
The most frustrating part? The person behind the content may know exactly what they’re doing. They know it’s wrong, misleading, or harmful. They simply want you to react.
Because: Comment = interaction = Positive signal to the recommendation algorithm = Buzz = Money.
Why Is It So Hard to Stop Watching?
Once again, we’re human. We’re curious. And this content taps into some very human tendencies, which can make it surprisingly difficult to resist.
You might think: if I don’t like it, I’ll just move on and fill my feed with things I enjoy. Sounds easy enough. But our emotional reactions, and the way platforms respond to our behavior, can make it a little more complicated.
Art by Mariana Pedroza
Strong Emotions Grab Our Attention
In 2012, Jonah Berger and Katherine Milkman studied which New York Times articles were most widely shared. Their findings were interesting: content that stirred up certain strong emotions, both positive and negative, was more likely to be shared.
“Virality is partially driven by physiological arousal. Content that evokes high-arousal positive (awe) or negative (anger or anxiety) emotions is more viral. Content that evokes low-arousal, or deactivating, emotions (e.g., sadness) is less viral.”
— Jonah Berger & Katherine L. Milkman
In other words, emotions that get us worked up, including anger and anxiety, were associated with more sharing.
A 2023 study of online news headlines explored another part of the picture. In experiments using Upworthy headlines, negative wording increased the likelihood of a click. In that setting, a more negative headline could make people more likely to open the article.
Anger Makes Us Want to Act
When content clashes with our values, touches a nerve, or challenges the way we see things, we may want to defend ourselves, push back, or set the record straight. Researchers have described a “confrontation effect.”
“While the prevailing sentiment is that people prefer to engage with ideology-consistent content and avoid content that clashes with their personal beliefs (Hart et al., 2009), we show that there are circumstances when the opposite pattern emerges, a phenomenon we call the confrontation effect.”
— Daniel Mochon & Janet Schwartz
Their research suggests that, under certain conditions, outrage can make people engage more with content that goes against their beliefs. Disagreement can be a powerful reason to engage.
We Look for Reassurance
The question that naturally comes to mind is: “Am I the only one who thinks this is awful?” And where do we go to find out? The comments, of course.
Sometimes, we find people defending the content and feel almost obliged to argue with them. Other times, we find people who agree with us and are just as critical of it.
Either way, we may end up trying to affirm our position, almost as though we need to join one of two opposing camps.
Okay, but What’s the Problem?
Your first thought might be: “Fine, I get annoyed every thirty seconds by someone talking nonsense. So what?”
One irritating video isn’t necessarily a big deal. What deserves our attention is how often this happens, how much provocative content we’re exposed to, and how that repeated exposure may affect us over time.
Problem #1: Our Mood
When we keep scrolling through negative news, we can fall into doomscrolling. We won’t unpack the whole topic here, but you can read our dedicated article about doomscrolling.
A 2024 study involving participants in Iran and the United States found an association between doomscrolling and existential anxiety: worries about life, meaning, and our place in the world.
“The appetite for negative news is fueled by negativity bias, which compels people to prioritize negative over positive stories.”
— Reza Shabahang et al.
And it’s worth asking ourselves: if we spend three hours a day scrolling through content that leaves us furious, how do we feel afterward? What does that do to the rest of our day?
Problem #2: The Way We See the World
It can also affect the way we see the world around us. A constant stream of negativity may leave us feeling as though everything is hopeless.
Think about it. If my feed keeps showing me:
People behaving foolishly.
Extreme, polarizing opinions.
Conflict and war.
Rude, inconsiderate, or inappropriate behavior.
Injustice.
People showing nothing but hostility toward one another.
…I may start mistaking the version of the world in my feed for the world as a whole.
An endless stream of outrage can make hostility feel everywhere. And if the accounts and comments I turn to keep reinforcing the same beliefs, that can resemble an echo chamber: an environment where the information we encounter repeatedly confirms what we already think.
Problem #3: An Idea I Reject Starts to Feel Familiar
This brings us to the illusory truth effect.
In plain English: repeated information can start to feel more credible, whether it is true or false.
A 2023 study found that even a single previous exposure to misinformation could make participants more willing to share it. This was linked to an increase in its perceived accuracy.
In other words, finding a claim ridiculous the first time you see it doesn’t necessarily make you immune to the effects of repetition.
“Misinformation can negatively impact people’s lives in domains ranging from health to politics. […] That is, repetition of misinformation biased people’s judgment of accuracy and as a result fuelled the spread of misinformation. The effect was observed in the domain of health and general knowledge, suggesting it is not tied to a specific domain.”
— V. Vellani et al.
There’s also a broader question here: can ideas that once seemed unacceptable start to feel more normal? The Overton window describes the range of political ideas considered acceptable in public debate. That’s a different concept from the illusory truth effect, but both invite us to think about what repeated exposure can make feel familiar or acceptable.
