This is the script for the ‘infinite scroll podcast’ episode: “The Rise of Ragebait: From Bizarre Influencer Lies to Insidious Political Strategies”
It’s no secret that people online are often angry. Whether it’s the anonymity that the internet allows or the sense of protection that comes with being behind a screen, social media is a hotbed for hostility. Users can be more intense, more reactive, and let’s be honest, a bit more ruthless than they might be face-to-face.
For a long time, this sort of rage was mostly a reaction. In the early 2010s, YouTube videos would be flooded with hate comments and dislikes. ‘Baby’ by Justin Bieber might ring a bell as one of the most disliked videos back in the day. In the TikTok era, you’ll find a similar phenomenon with comment sections brimming with snarky comments. But, all this anger seemed to come from users— ordinary people letting out their frustrations, not necessarily the celebrities or content creators themselves.
Recently, though, this dynamic has shifted, with more and more creators turning this anger into an opportunity. They’re not just ignoring the rage— they’re tapping into it, using it to their advantage.
Enter: Ragebait.
Defining Ragebait
Now, you’ve probably heard of clickbait— sensationalised headlines or video titles that encourage (and mislead) users into clicking on something that they didn’t necessarily intend to. Think of ragebait as the angrier version, designed to provoke outrage and get people talking, sharing, and engaging with content, even if it’s in a heated or negative way.
“Rage bait isn’t just common online anymore, it’s taking over the internet — and changing the way we view content in the process,” CT Jones writes for The Rolling Stone. “Many early forms of internet content were rage-bait adjacent, meant to stop people in their tracks long enough for them to have an emotional response and then engage… But in the influencer age, a new character has emerged: the rage-bait influencers.”
We’ve all come across ragebait creators at some point while scrolling through social media— maybe even without realising it. These creators post content designed to frustrate viewers so much that it compels them to engage. Whether it’s sharing a cringe-worthy staged interaction, slipping in an obvious spelling mistake in a caption, deliberately misusing a product, or making a wildly outrageous statement, the goal is the same: to provoke a reaction. In this world, any engagement is good engagement.
Obviously, this isn’t exactly new. As Tanya Chen notes for Business Insider, “For as long as cable news punditry has been around, people have weaponized anger to captivate audiences.” But this trend has intensified with the normalisation of algorithms and the rise of short-form video, which make it easier for internet users to take information out of context and push creators to cater to the attention economy.
The rise of ragebait
As TikTok has democratised internet fame, with nearly every internet user now chasing virality, ragebait has become increasingly common. Google Trends data reveals that the term “ragebait” saw little to no searches until the end of 2022, but it experienced a huge surge in interest early last year and has continued to rise steadily since then.
As for why this is the case, CT Jones makes the claim that this is partly because content is often taken out of context when reshared across different platforms. The “Boots and a Slicked-Back Bun” trend, which went viral last year, is a case in point, where Andrew Tate shared a clip of employees participating in the TikTok trend on X.
Even though today’s viral landscape feels siloed— where we’re all locked into our own algorithms— it’s easier than ever for content to spread across platforms that the creator may not have intended. And the downside? Videos that might clearly be ragebait on one platform can be taken completely seriously on another, with hate being directed to creators at a greater intensity.
“As apps like X and Facebook become shells of their former selves, cross-platform posting means rage-bait influencers can often be thrust in front of new eyes that have absolutely no context, and simply engage further. With more social apps involved, the bait doesn’t just work — it thrives,” Jones continues.
Now, the opportunities for cross-platform virality are just one of the reasons why ragebait has taken off in the digital space. When we step back and consider how much the digital landscape has changed – and how volatile it has become — it’s no surprise that ragebait has been increasingly normalised. The current landscape of X is the perfect example of this.
While users were already sending hate and fighting on Twitter— especially within stan communities— things took a turn when Elon Musk took over. He often feeds into ragebait, responding to problematic tweets with one-word replies, seemingly to amplify them. As the platform’s owner, Musk sets the tone for the space, and his actions have undoubtedly contributed to a more hostile environment. While this behaviour hasn’t been labelled as ragebait on a widespread scale, Musk would understand the impact of these tweets— especially given his role in shaping the platform’s culture.
In a roundabout way, X has also encouraged the rise of ragebait on other platforms, particularly Threads. Reports suggest that Threads— as Meta’s competitor to Twitter— has been capitalising on ragebait to boost engagement. Although Threads quickly amassed over 100 million users after its launch in 2023, and reached 175 million monthly users by mid- last year, it has struggled to carve out a unique culture that draw users in. Instead, many former Twitter users are sticking with X or migrating to other platforms like BlueSky before considering Threads.
In an episode of WIRED’s Gadget Lab podcast published late last year, journalists Lauren Goode and Michael Calore discussed how the key to virality on Threads is “to ask a ridiculous question that enrages your followers so much, they just have to chime in to answer you, mock you, or berate you.” In other words: posting ragebait.
They also spoke with Business Insider senior correspondent Katie Notopoulos about her personal experiment with ragebait on Threads. She theorised that replies, rather than reposts, are the driving force behind what goes viral and gets shown on feeds on the platform.
“I had noticed that the Threads algorithm seemed weird,” Notopoulos explains. “The kind of stuff I was seeing that seemed to get a lot of comments was often people asking for advice in describing domestic problems, like family problems, parenting problems, relationships, and asking for advice. And they would get tons and tons of comments… so I experimented with posting these social etiquette kinds of questions, asking for advice, but in the persona of an incredibly stupid person.”
But Threads isn’t the only Twitter competitor that is using ragebait. There have recently been reports that Bluesky is dabbling with this kind of strategy to boost engagement. According to Ryan Broderick in a recent edition of the Garbage Day Newsletter, there has been an “invasion” of Bluesky disagree bots. In an effort to build its user base and boost engagement, the platform appears to be populated with bots whose sole purpose seems to be being confrontational.
“Bluesky is awash right now in reply bots that basically just fight with you about whatever you post. I didn’t notice them right away because most Bluesky users also act this way,” Broderick explains.
At this stage, the true purpose of these bots remains unclear, but Broderick suggests that they may be part of a broader experiment to determine what kind of engagement tactics work best on Bluesky.
While ragebait and engagement farming invites hate, platforms, creators and users who lean into it appear unfazed by the negative messaging. Instead, they leverage it to grow their followings, build their presence, and drive engagement. Social media platforms arguably play the most significant role, as their algorithms are designed to prioritise engagement above all else. And for these creators operating in these platforms, pursuing fame, influence, and virality is the ultimate goal, with ragebait offering a quick path to achieving it.
Examples of mainstream ragebait by influencers
To truly understand how prolific this kind of content has become, it is worth looking at some of the most viral examples of ragebait.
Aside from the all podcast bros and manosphere creators, one of the most recent examples of a creator engaging in seemingly intentional ragebait was YouTuber Nikocado Avocado.
A mukbang creator, Nicholas Perry, who goes by Nikocado Avocado on social media, built a following of over 4 million from sharing videos of himself eating massive amounts of food. Over the course of about eight years, his viewers watched as Nik engaged in both clickbait and ragebait practices– gaining weight for the sake of his content, sharing intimate details of his health and sex life, having turbulent meltdowns on camera, and more.
On a 2019 episode of the now-defunct Dish with Trish podcast, Nik told host Trisha Paytas: “The viewers like when I’m upset, they like when I’m crying, they like when I’m hyper,” he said, before admitting that he intentionally makes video titles “clickbaity.”
That is, until last year when Nik shocked the internet, revealing that at least some of this content had been a lie. In September 2024, Nik uploaded a video titled ‘Two Steps Ahead’ in which he revealed he had lost 250lbs. The catch? He did so in secret– only posting pre-recorded videos for two entire years while he lost the weight.
Calling this the “greatest social experiment” of his life, Nik’s revelation was met with mixed reactions– with many noting that this “social experiment” is evidence that Nik was intentionally exploiting sensitive points such as weight, health, and mental health for ragebait to gain views and make money.
Another creator who is frequently accused of creating ragebait content is TikToker Winta Zesu. A 22-year-old influencer from New York City, Winta became one of the fast-growing ragebait creators of the last year. Winta grew her platform of nearing 900K by posting skits and storytime videos about situations that… probably didn’t happen. Though a lot of Winta’s content could be considered satirical, the creator admitted to The Rolling Stone in 2024 that she intentionally does create controversial content for views.
“I realised that videos really blow up when there’s like controversial things going on in the video,” she said in the interview. “When someone asks me what kind of content I do, I usually say skits, or if I’m talking about those restaurant videos, [I] say satire. I guess it is rage bait, too. But I don’t know why I don’t say that. I don’t really like the term.”
One of Winta’s most viral moments came in March 2024 was when she claimed that she was chosen to be a backup dancer for Tyla. In the video, which saw nearly 29 million views, Winta spliced together clips from what appeared to be two different videos– one of Tyla dancing and cheering at an intimate gathering and another of Winta “auditioning” for Tyla. The spliced clips make it seem like Tyla is cheering on Winta’s dance moves, but there are noticeable differences between the venues where these videos seem to take place. The comment section is filled with thousands of questions from users wondering if this is real or fake– because who would intentionally lie on TikTok about something that is so easy to disprove?
Fast forward 10 months later, and Winta finally admitted the video was a hoax. While participating in the creator confessions trend prior to the US TikTok ban where TikTokers revealed ways they had lied to their audience over the years, Winta made a video saying, “Tyla never hired me as her backup dancer”-– confirming for users that her most viral moment was fabricated to farm for engagement.
Ragebait as a political tool: Ragebait, the manosphere and the far-right
While much of this ragebait may seem harmless by capitalising on shock-value moments or trivial frustrations online, there are dangerous ways in which it is impacting the digital sphere. Consider the manosphere. For those unfamiliar, the manosphere is an umbrella term for various online men’s rights movements that share common views on gender dynamics.
From incels to pick-up artists to gamergaters, the manosphere is far-reaching. At its core, however, is the belief that men are unfairly treated for various reasons, with many of these groups formed in opposition to female empowerment and the rise of feminism. While men may not initially stumble upon these groups because they are misogynistic, it’s easy to internalise these narratives due to the way they are presented.
“The manosphere appeals to its audience because it speaks to the very real lives of young men under the factors – romantic rejection, alienation, economic failure, loneliness, and a dim vision of the future,” Academics Ben Rich and Eva Bujalka write for The Conversation. “The major problem lies in its diagnosis of the cause of male disenfranchisement, which fixates on the impacts of feminism.”
While there are various reasons that lead men to follow these extremely misogynistic and dangerous belief systems — none of which are valid, to be honest— ragebait is a powerful tool in stirring them up and drawing them in.
Some of the manosphere’s most prolific creators post ragebait with the goal of making it go viral. Nick Fuentes is one such example. Nick is a 26-year-old far-right political pundit and livestreamer. He’s been deplatformed from platforms like YouTube for his controversial and dangerous views. Nevertheless, last year he went viral after celebrating the outcome of the 2024 US presidential election. He posted a disturbing phrase to his 400K+ followers on X: “Your body, my choice. Forever.” This tweet twisted the pro-choice slogan “my body, my choice” to attack women’s reproductive rights.
In retaliation, women across the internet doxxed Nick, sharing his personal information online, with one woman even showing up at his home to confront him.
But in terms of ragebait, this post was undeniably designed to provoke, and it quickly spread across the internet, amplifying Nick’s harmful message. While most viewers may recognise it as ragebait, there are dangerous consequences for those who don’t. For instance, some users might believe this messaging, seeing the post’s virality as confirmation and legitimacy. Some Reddit users have also argued that the strong reactions from women (many of which are entirely valid in a case like this) can pull young men deeper into the manosphere pipeline, with many people within this group dismissing these comments as irrational and incorrect.
Extensive research has shown that people often perceive comments from women as emotional and are less likely to take them seriously or believe them. As academics Teresa Frasca, Emily Leskinen, and Leah Warner have noted, “Emotion has a history of being associated with femininity and irrational, disorganized behavior…with women being seen as dispositionally, and therefore chronically, emotional and irrational.”
As ragebait serves as a tool to draw social media users into the manosphere, it extends to the broader right-wing space. In 2022, The Atlantic reported that ragebaiting was a prevalent tactic among right-wing online commentators to boost engagement. The article, written by Molly Jong-Fast, highlighted how culture war tropes are designed to incite rage and anger among more users online.
“Rage farming is not the same thing as an inherently polarizing algorithm, but it’s certainly a way for the right to game these technology platforms’ relationship with engagement,” she writes. “[It] is the product of a perfect storm of fuckery, an unholy mélange of algorithms and anxiety.”
The X account Libs of TikTok serves as a prime example. Operated by Chaya Raichik, the account curates and reposts progressive views from TikTok onto another platform, seemingly framing them as ragebait.
“The account’s impact is deep and far-reaching. Its content is amplified by high-profile media figures, politicians and right-wing influencers,” Taylor Lorenz wrote for The Washington Post in 2022. “Its tweets reach millions, with influence spreading far beyond its more than 648,000 Twitter followers. Libs of TikTok has become an agenda-setter in right-wing online discourse.“
Ragebait isn’t limited to one side of the political spectrum
Of course, these tactics are not confined to one side of the political spectrum, nor do they have to be political at all.
Seemingly neutral or unaffiliated channels can also engage in ragebait to drive engagement. For example, YouTube channels like Jubilee sometimes fall into this category. For those unfamiliar, Jubilee is run by a Los Angeles–based media company founded by entrepreneur Jason Y. Lee, with the mission to “provoke understanding and create human connection” across the political spectrum.
They produce various video formats, such as Surrounded, where a person (often a public figure) is surrounded by and debates several opponents, and Middle Ground, where two opposing sides engage in dialogue to find common ground. The channel, though long established, gained significant traction during the 2024 Presidential Election, featuring videos with right-wing commentators like Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk, alongside progressive TikTok debater Dean Withers. Some of the most popular content from this period included videos like: “Can 1 Woke Teen Survive 20 Trump Supporters?” and “Can 25 Liberal College Students Outsmart 1 Conservative?”
Take Surrounded for example. In this format, a representative from “one side” of the argument faces multiple opponents from the other “side.” The catch is that opponents are voted out by people who share their opinion, adding a competitive element. Unfortunately, opponents tend to be voted out, when the participants seem to reach some form of agreement. As a result, this setup tends to limit opportunities for meaningful discussion and dialogue — making it extremely frustrating for the viewer.
Despite Jubilee’s presumed goal, some internet users have pointed out that the editing and format of these videos seem to exploit “gotcha” moments, effectively transforming them into a platform for ragebait.
The threats of ragebait
But ragebait doesn’t just limit effective communication in the digital space— it builds animosity between social media users who may hold different opinions or identify with different sides of the political spectrum. Social media is already becoming increasingly siloed, especially as platforms rely more on algorithms, and we continue to fall into specific “information bubbles.” As a result, we have less context about what others outside our bubble are feeling and discussing. Ragebait intensifies this issue by making us less inclined to hear opposing views, ultimately deepening divisions and fostering greater discord.
On top of this, ragebait makes it easy to spread misinformation. Sensationalist or emotionally charged commentary is often stitched and duetted on platforms like TikTok, frequently taken out of context. While this may be exactly what the creator intends, it can easily misrepresent a topic or issue. Though it is human nature to react, the emotional response might encourage users to share content without critically considering the issue— sometimes without even realising the content is ragebait, furthering the cycle and riling up more social media users.
Ultimately, the focus on engagement at any cost fosters a toxic environment where outrage becomes currency and genuine discourse is often overshadowed by hostility. In this context, the ends justify the means— even if those means involve fracturing online communities, promoting divisiveness, and contributing to an increasingly hostile digital landscape.
The appeal of ragebait: Why can’t we help but feed into ragebait? Why are we addicted to this content?
Though many of us recognise the issues with ragebait and can identify it when we come across it, users can’t help but feed into it. There isn’t a single explanation for this, but thinking of ragebait in terms of hate-watching offers valuable insight. Hate-watching, for those unfamiliar, involves watching content you find bad or perhaps cringe, often for the enjoyment of mocking or criticising it. In a piece for Huff Post, Brittany Wong outlines a list of possible reasons why people love to hate-watch — one being that it provides an opportunity to criticise people, ideas and themes openly. As JR Ilagan, a clinical psychologist, explains to VICE, humans are “naturally voyeuristic.” So, it’s no surprise that we are urged to react to certain content.
Ragebait evokes a similar response to hate-watching because it often makes viewers feel a sense of superiority. Engaging with content that is designed to provoke often leaves us feeling critical, feeding into this feeling of superiority. However, unlike hate watching, which can bring about an arguably twisted sense of enjoyment, ragebait elicits anger and frustration, as we have already established by this point.
Without fail, we’ve all experienced a moment when anger caused our hearts to race and adrenaline to spike. This can activate our “fight or flight” response, creating a sense of urgency. In this heightened state, anger can push us to take action— whether that’s confronting someone or standing up against an injustice. While it can be dangerous, anger also has the potential to be a powerful motivator, encouraging us to engage rather than step away. And in a social media landscape where attention is the ultimate currency, anger might just be more effective than hate when driving engagement.
The term “attention economy” was first introduced by American political scientist Herbert A. Simon in the 1960s. He framed attention as a scarce resource, presenting it as an economic problem. While this concept might initially seem disconnected from today’s digital landscape, it has become central to how marketers, social media strategists, and journalists understand the internet. In this ecosystem, both corporations and creators are locked in constant competition for our focus.
“This economy, which sees our focus as a finite resource to be captured and monetized, has fundamentally altered how we connect,” Curt Steinhorst writes for Forbes. “It poses significant challenges that threaten to undermine the quality of our attention, our relationships, and our understanding of the world.“
This attention-economy is only intensified by the proliferation of short-form videos across social media. As we scroll through our TikTok FYP, Instagram feeds and YouTube shorts, we are constantly being bombarded by bite-sized content designed to capture our attention. It’s addictive, offering instant gratification by providing entertainment or information without taking up much of our time. Whether this is beneficial or harmful is a separate debate, but it has undeniably contributed to the normalisation of emotion-driven content like ragebait. Videos that provoke strong emotional reactions— whether rage, frustration or even appreciation— provide the dopamine hit we’ve come to expect in from scrolling on our phones.
Though ragebait is intentionally inflammatory, this type of content isn’t going away any time soon.
Ragebait thrives in the current digital landscape– driven by algorithms where provoking outrage captures attention and boosts engagement. Creators and social media platforms alike feed into this phenomenon, prioritising divisive and polarising content that keeps us hooked to fuel virality.
With this understanding, keeping a critical eye on the content we consume is more important than ever. While some ragebait content appears to be obvious, it’s the inconspicuous content– like an offensive tweet or a confrontational comment – that threatens to keep our digital landscape fragmented and hostile for years to come.
Listen to the full episode via the ‘infinite scroll podcast’ on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube.