upvote
Facebook is paying controversial creators to produce rage-bait content

(www.abc.net.au)

I will call out the ABC here for taking a lot of the boots on the ground work that Tom Tanuki - independent journo (https://youtube.com/@tomtanuki) has done with these far right slopaganda mills, slicing off the prior recognition and pretending it's a big new problem they just found. While a bit of this is new... Is it that new? Is this report that detailed? Hmmmmm
reply
The companies clearly won’t listen to reason, not as long as this strategy works.

Voting seems to work, either with actual votes, or wallet, or attention.

reply
This isn't anything new, it was abundantly clear after Facebook removed their fact checking team during covid that the priority was engagement over everything else, and rage bait is exactly that.
reply
I just want to add, that they (FB and other big social media) probably understood what propaganda power they wield after 2016 facebook and cambridge analytica scandal.

Personally - I think that this was the moment when silicon valley billionaires without shadow of a doubt understood that they have power what used to be reserved only for state actors. Bonus - for using that power they get fined penny on the dollar at most or just slap on the wrist.

Update: now situation is even worse - states actively buy propaganda with social media companies, making those companies even more rich and influential.

reply
Facebook is still big in my country, Lithuania, and both rage-bait and other type of fringe content is rampant, and even worse after fact-checking was removed. It is wild, and with some outside actors (specific country that shall not be named) it is a big problem with political and social effects being felt IRL.
reply
And is Lithuania doing anything about it? In Romania Facebook and TikTok do whatever they please, and whatever they are paid to do, with complete impunity as the authorities actively do nothing at all.
reply
How is this any different than traditional media? Cable news creates fake problems and controversy constantly, and pay their news anchors well to do so.

In return, many companies that rely on these problems, turn around and advertise on these networks.

Social media is just following the same strategy.

reply
What are you trying to say? That Facebook should be excused because others also behave badly?

Otherwise, we can dislike both things and it adds nothing to say "but why aren't your talking about the other thing instead". And for what it's worth, there is a pretty clear difference between the journalistic standards of FB bait and of the legacy media.

reply
Social media has been protected by the Safe Harbour rules because they had millions of users creating content which was difficult to monitor and moderate.

If they start producing their own content they might get considered like a news organisation with a whole different set of rules being applied to them and Safe Harbour being inapplicable.

reply
With social media you can spend small amounts of money , create media and target people half across the globe from you.

ruzzian troll farm employee cannot call into fox news and say “create 100 John Does impersonating MAGA texans (or whatever), present them as real and I will pay you 5$ for that”. Such troll can automate all this and present media somewhat realistically on FB.

reply
> How is this any different than traditional media?

Scale, lower entry bar, lack of regulation.

reply
Sure, and Ebola and influenza share traits too. I’m not sure that makes them interchangeable though.
reply
>> How is this any different than traditional media?

Facebook is global. Traditional media is much more heavily regulated in some countries and while it may not be perfect, it's not comparable to the shit show that is social media.

reply
FB is built on rage bait, what else do they have beside cute videos?
reply
If you use the friends or "all" feeds, you just get stuff about what your friends are up to and things from pages you've subscribed to. Or I do anyway. Also good for discovering events locally.

Even the main feed isn't that bad for me. I guess it depends who your friends are and what you click on.

reply
Horrible sympathy and religion bait like "I bet nobody will upvote this poor sick child with one leg, won't you? 1 amen = 1 prayer!"
reply
Connecting with your friends and family. Unfortunately they abandoned this long ago because they weren't satisfied with making a mountain of money.
reply
Ironically, this article is rage-bait.
reply
Ragebait is what FB runs on. A lot of these people do not even believe what they say. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2025-11-16/kin...
reply
FB and IG reels both. Twitter gets a lot of rightfully owed criticism about it's fair share but its always weird to me seeing people slam twitter then go right on to IG or some other meta owned app as if its significantly different.
reply
I'm so glad I got myself off Instagram and Reddit, the longer I go without them the more I realise what massive cognitohazards both of them are if you spend too much time on them. Different mechanisms but both were much more of a net drain on me than I realised before leaving them.
reply
Is it ethical wrong in this case, to wish those persons to get beaten up one day, by one of the people where they fueled their hate (who do take it out on other people for real)? So they reap what they sow?
reply
Understandable but wrong.
reply
Especially before elections, it feels like they rewards people for being toxic
reply
Social media platforms have been paying out for attention seeking behaviour for a long time now. It’s why every YouTube video now has the same lame shocked face, red arrows, and clickbait title. It’s why assholes film themselves intentionally pissing people off for TikTok. It’s a whole category called nuisance tubing.

I remember during COVID I saw a number of YouTubers swing from producing normal content into conspiracy shit. Their views ballooned. I saw a nasty feedback loop where the more controversial content received more engagement, hence more ad revenue, leading to more of it being produced.

These platforms are actively degenerating society; there’s a reason the CCP is keeping tight control and reportedly rebalancing things to promote educational creators on China’s.

reply
Indeed. What I noticed is that the quality of the videos went down on youtube in the last 3 years. Now, the quality was never as great as it used to be anyway, but Google changed various things that made youtube worse. They are slowly killing off youtube without realising it.
reply
A lot of channels got bought by private equity. YouTube is saturated with similar content so creators have to resort to clickbait to keep up. AI has allowed creators to increase their efficiency writing scripts.

I don't know what you believe Google changed about YouTube, but I believe it has just made itself worse.

reply
People want to feel like they're doing something in the "culture war". Rage-bait gives them an outlet. Facebook might be saving us from total civil war here.
reply
Can't they just do it with AI ?
reply
First of all, Facebook is not even the worst offender. That'd have to go to X and TikTok. Rage bait, propaganda, and straight up bad actors with money pushing their agenda. If you got angry because of a TikTok video, you are being exploited.

Some of these actors also put a lot of money into campuses in the west, so when you're done watching some terrible propaganda, you can join a local club and find your way to more people getting angry at misinformation. This is how we get stuff like "globalize intifada" and students "occupying" buildings.

I wish this was just hyperbole, but really, go check for yourself what kind of money state actors put into schools and universities in the west, and why.

reply
Clickbait. Title makes it sound like they pay them directly to promote the platform, but they get paid through facebook content monetisation program
reply
Not Clickbait.

If you provide both:

a) a service to earn money from content

b) an algo promoting those videos

then yes, IMHO they pay them directly for the content produced.

reply
There is a distinction between:

- Meta is commissioning or sponsoring rage-bait

- Controversial creators are earning money through Facebook's content monetization program

The title is ambiguous (at first, I thought it was the first case), and that's where the clickbait lies.

No doubt that also the second case is a serious problem, but that's orthogonal to the ambiguity of the title.

reply
So they do directly pay them?
reply
When will people learn that rage bait content thrives thanks to people who are so delicate and emotional that they get unhealthily enraged at such content?

Stop raging on the internet and the rage bait content will disappear overnight.

Stop buying oil, chasing newest phones, luxuries, and the climate will get better overnight.

It’s all on the consumers, contrary to Redditor belief that the big corporations are at fault, it’s simply the matter of demand and thus supply. Not the other way around.

Take accountability. I know nowadays it is very unpopular to take accountability but this is the first step to make world better place. You can only change your own habits.

reply
> You can only change your own habits

Rather like smoking, I can only change my own habits (have never smoked) but that won't prevent me from being harmed by other people's habits.

Even if I don't use Facebook, I can be harmed by Facebook voters.

reply
Out of interest, would you have made this argument with respect to Big Tobacco back in the day? In my view surveillance-based behavioural recommendation engines belong very much in the same category.
reply
I would say that initiative to combat big tobacco didn’t emerge out of some bored statesman.

It was what people voted for and endorsed, one way or another. Grassroots activists and various bottom top endeavours.

If you expect somebody else to solve your problems then nothing will ever happen.

reply
Meta could help the situation, for instance by providing fact-checking tools and banning rage-bait creators.

Instead they have removed those tools and are paying these creators. So it's not just consumers to blame here.

reply
Well, you use their platform and thus line their pockets. Why? Because it’s convenient, it’s lazy and “free” and you sold your soul and data for far too cheap.

If the population cannot behave in their best interest then the whole western civ gets Darwin Award and I am fine with that honestly.

And it is actually happening in real time in almost all categories from fertility rate to losing psychological warfare.

reply
But we don't all use Facebook, Facebook found its niche of tech-illiterate people to abuse.

The population is a wide demographic and it would be nice if companies didn't try to exploit parts of it.

reply
I'm not holding my breath for masses to become informed, rational, responsible and balanced overall.

And why would the responsibility lie solely on consumers to act perfectly

reply
Now people understand why Suckerberg is called Suckerberg.

Those greedy billionaires also keep on having ties to right wing nuts. Let's not forget Melon Usk with his suspicious right-arm-raising gestures (having done so twice, which is quite strange when you do the same gesture twice in a row - I mean there can be no doubt about this if you do it twice; twice is an accident?).

reply
The irony here is that ABC is the platfrom doing the rage-baiting.
reply