Editor's note: All opinions, columns and letters reflect the views of the individual writer and not necessarily those of the IDS or its staffers.
I’m taking a class on the Beatles this semester, which means that my Instagram feed has been struck with Beatlemania, a few decades too late. What I see the most are videos featuring song or album rankings. I open the comment section and inevitably there’s the comment: “this has to be rage bait.” Admittedly, it can be hard to tell if a stranger on the internet really thinks “Magical Mystery Tour” is better than “Abbey Road,” or if they just want to be contrary.
Rage bait was the Oxford Word of the Year in 2025. Oxford defines it as “online content deliberately designed to elicit anger or outrage…typically posted in order to increase traffic to or engagement with a particular web page or social media content.” Angele Cristin, an associate professor of communication at Stanford University, called it the “negative, vengeful cousin of clickbait.”
Both of those definitions highlight something important about rage bait: social media influencers and content creators are not creating rage bait content for no reason. An absurd comment made without any nuance triggers the need to correct the statement in the viewer, drives users to comment or share a video.. This gives the original poster more and more views as the video is launched onto more and more algorithms.
In the age of social media as a profession, that is the goal. In order to make money, influencers need to go viral. Rage bait is a surefire way to do that. Content tries to illicit a reaction, sell something or go viral, so it is imperative to be analytical when viewing any kind of content
More than that, content creators need to be held accountable for what they put online, so that we can protect their audience. Moreover, that accountability needs to be encouraged by the companies that own these apps. If change comes from the top down, it is more likely to be effective.
Social media has become an avenue for brands to advertise their products. In fact, 85% of marketers consider influencer marketing to be effective. They make brand deals with an influencer, and that influencer makes videos endorsing the product online.
The US Federal Trade Commission outlined guidelines for disclosing these partnerships. Anyone with a brand deal must place a message telling viewers that they are partnering, whether that be through a transaction or receiving free product, with the brand. On social media, this can look like tagging the brand or putting a hashtag in the description of a video. That way, viewers can make a determination about whether to purchase a product with all the necessary information. The influencer is being paid, which will change the way that they speak about the product.
However, a study of influencer marketing on Twitter found that 96% of sponsored posts were not disclosed. But recognizing undisclosed ads are is difficult. Only 66% of users could correctly identify posts as sponsored when given a random sample of undisclosed ads to classify.
This is a huge problem, as it represents widespread dishonesty toward viewers from influencers. Influencers clearly have power. Viewers trust their opinions. An undisclosed ad takes advantage of that trust.
In the same way, rage bait content prays on viewers who are unsure about how to identify what is rage bait and what is not. While there is no monetary injury attached to rage bait, it may have a negative effect on mental health, especially for young people. Repeated exposure to rage bait content can contribute to burnout, heightened anxiety, difficulty concentrating and depression.
In reality, the problem isn’t rage bait. It’s the environment that has been created on social media, where influencers are forced to compete for attention. This is what produced rage bait in the first place, and it needs to change. Social media needs to become a more honest place.
One way to do this is to hold influencers accountable for their content. This could look like a push to encourage influencers to use and truly assess a product before they endorse it, perhaps even adding this caveat to disclosure laws.
As for the companies, clear guidelines for content must be enforced. There should be limits on content like rage bait, as well as a standardized way to identify what qualifies as rage bait. The frequency of rage bait content could be regulated, as in, content creators being allowed to build an entire page or following off of rage bait. The content of rage bait videos could also be examined. Song rankings may not be as harmful as political misinformation or content that could be misunderstood to encourage harmful habits like overconsumption, and in those cases, the content may need to be taken down or disclosed as rage bait.
47 U.S. Code 230 protects platforms like TikTok or Instagram from facing legal consequences for content that third party users, content creators, post. This federal law was last examined in 1996, however, when the landscape of the Internet and social media nowadays could not have been predicted. Companies should be held liable by law when it comes to harm that they could foreseeably prevent.
On the other side, viewers can have an influence on the environment of social media as well. Content that promotes in-depth discussion rather than snap reactions must be encouraged. That means viewing, sharing and commenting on content that provokes that sort of rational thought. It also means educating ourselves and others on how to recognize tactics like rage bait when they do arise.
Being more mindful about social media use will continue to be a prevalent topic. We must create a safer environment for everyone.
Sasha Burton (she/her) is an elementary education major with minors in Spanish and English.
