I wonder if the impulse to click on some of the stories is related to linguistic techniques utilized by the sourced viral content engineers (such as Upworthy).
While we're on the topic, is it just me or has memetic engineering kicked it up a notch lately with Upworthy, ViralNova, etc? Or was it always like this?
Upworthy seems to have started a noxious trend -- it's supposedly a successful marketing technique, and has hence been copied. The headline style itself has a bit of a longer history, but Upworthy was the first to combine it with aggressive social-media promotion of re-shares (Their business model is "give us a video, we will promote the heck out of it to force it viral"), so that it gets forced upon people who don't want to see it (as opposed to HuffPo, for example, which you can mostly avoid by choosing not to visit the site).
And Upworthy content is political propaganda (it's a spinoff project from the moveon.org folks, and its services are marketed as a tool to manipulate viewers' political viewpoints, not just sell stuff or generic ad impressions), not just humorous clickbait; that adds an extra layer of manipulative slime to the headlines.
'Manipulative slime' is pretty spot-on. Upworthy tries to change political viewpoints but it doesn't do it in most cases by presenting facts, by challenging assumptions, or by trying to elevate the level of discourse. Instead, it's all low-quality viral content, reshares, and stuff explicitly intended to induce warm fuzzies within its viewers first and foremost. From the linked article:
"One Upworthy post carried the headline “Watch A Preacher Attack Gay Marriage And Totally Change His Mind On The Spot” without mentioning that the entire speech was a hoax by the pro-gay rights preacher, who was making fun of the other viewpoint."
I didn't realize Upworthy was a spinoff from moveon.org, but now it all makes so much sense. I actually have never ended up reading anything from Upworthy, because before they show you any content they ask you questions like, "Do you think it's not not wrong to kill puppies? (YES) (NOT YES?)"
Good points, and you're right that Upworthy is an engine for viral political content, which I find very interesting.
You call it "manipulative slime," but I'm still undecided on the morality of it. On the one hand, the manipulative aspect is incredibly annoying, and I avoid clicking on Upworthy links basically out of spite. On the other hand, is this worse or better than using viral marketing tactics to sell a product? What if Upworthy manages to get hundreds of thousands of people to share an informative video on a civil rights issue that you find to be of pressing importance?
Viewed through this lens, Upworthy is essentially analogous to viral vector gene therapy for the hivemind. Is this inherently evil? Do the ends justify the means? I don't know, but it would be an interesting discussion to have.
