Good point to be cautious about manufactured opposition. On the other hand, isn’t rage baiting a common way to garner attention in today’s environment? Isn’t that exactly what makes your comment so attractive to respond to/rebuff?
Perhaps I’m conflating rage baiting with manufactured opposition, but I do think FK is onto something here.
Misinformation and clickbait are also common ways to get attention. I wouldn’t recommend those tactics, either.
The way that a lot of people get attention online is fundamentally destructive. It gets them clicks and ad revenue, but it doesn’t help cause positive change in the world.
I don’t think it makes sense to justify manipulative, dishonest, or deceptive tactics like ragebait on the basis that they are good at getting attention. This is taking a business model from social media, which in some cases is arguably like digital cigarettes, and inappropriately applying it to animal advocacy. If the goal is to get people to scroll a lot and show them a lot of ads, sure, copy the tactics used in social media. But that isn’t the goal here.
One form of ragebait is when you generate rage at a target other than yourself, but another form is when you bait people into getting angry at you (e.g. by expressing an insincere opinion) because that drives engagement, and engagement gets you paid. Making people angry at you is especially not applicable to animal advocacy.
Yes, I agree. These are all good takes, and I’ll own that I did not word my thoughts carefully enough for a constructive dialogue.
My point is that FK has some media acumen that the entire movement is struggling with. We are not in the news nearly as much as we should be. Yes, there is a line of taking it too far. But FK has seen what doesn’t work. They are experimenting and having nuanced success of getting earned media. I’m not saying it is justified, but I do think it is on the right track.
Good point to be cautious about manufactured opposition. On the other hand, isn’t rage baiting a common way to garner attention in today’s environment? Isn’t that exactly what makes your comment so attractive to respond to/rebuff?
Perhaps I’m conflating rage baiting with manufactured opposition, but I do think FK is onto something here.
Misinformation and clickbait are also common ways to get attention. I wouldn’t recommend those tactics, either.
The way that a lot of people get attention online is fundamentally destructive. It gets them clicks and ad revenue, but it doesn’t help cause positive change in the world.
I don’t think it makes sense to justify manipulative, dishonest, or deceptive tactics like ragebait on the basis that they are good at getting attention. This is taking a business model from social media, which in some cases is arguably like digital cigarettes, and inappropriately applying it to animal advocacy. If the goal is to get people to scroll a lot and show them a lot of ads, sure, copy the tactics used in social media. But that isn’t the goal here.
One form of ragebait is when you generate rage at a target other than yourself, but another form is when you bait people into getting angry at you (e.g. by expressing an insincere opinion) because that drives engagement, and engagement gets you paid. Making people angry at you is especially not applicable to animal advocacy.
Yes, I agree. These are all good takes, and I’ll own that I did not word my thoughts carefully enough for a constructive dialogue.
My point is that FK has some media acumen that the entire movement is struggling with. We are not in the news nearly as much as we should be. Yes, there is a line of taking it too far. But FK has seen what doesn’t work. They are experimenting and having nuanced success of getting earned media. I’m not saying it is justified, but I do think it is on the right track.