Easy to miss*, you could've too!!!

[barn]

Hi thinkers and alike,

What are the MORAL pros and cons when it comes to 'clickbait'?

If some proportions are to be provably moral, what are good approximations/guidelines that could be put forward?

Are there any important long term consequences?

 

(due to the argument of the thread, was the title chosen as such, all for the intended constructive purpose of pure demonstration itself)

- - - -

I have done a search on the forum but haven't found any thread with this topic.

- - - -

Here's a Wikipedia definition

Here's a(n) Urban dictionary definition

Here's what Merriam-Webster 'says'

- - - -

my stance:

I have no problem with it, unless I forgot to put on my 'thinking cap'. Though definitely have been always drawn to content where the claim (even if hyperbolic) have been greatly justified throughout the content and falls after overall consideration into the 'soft-clickbait' category.

- - - -

other, similar terms:

'link bait'

'sensational titles'

'SEO-d titles'

(churnalism?)

...

- - - -

Have a good one,

Barnsley

[smarterthanone]

What would be immoral about putting what I want on MY website? You could not go on MY website, or you could put what you want on YOUR website. Why is it my problem if you are stupid or have ADD and can't help yourself?

[barn]

22 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

What would be immoral about putting what I want on MY website? You could not go on MY website, or you could put what you want on YOUR website. Why is it my problem if you are stupid or have ADD and can't help yourself?

Hi,

I realise we are worlds apart, so much. I'm not even going to try to answer to what you wrote, other than saying I noticed the 'snarkiness' and lack of constructivity (I'm not going to unfold that neither, I'm happy if you treated it as 'another' opinion of someone.)

Thanks but no thanks.

Though, I guess it will invoke in people the right questions and I thank you for that.

Have a good one,

Barnsley

Edited December 14, 2017 by barn
Grrrr-mer

[smarterthanone]

11 hours ago, barn said:

Hi,

I realise we are worlds apart, so much. I'm not even going to try to answer to what you wrote, other than saying I noticed the 'snarkiness' and lack of constructivity (I'm not going to unfold that neither, I'm happy if you treated it as 'another' opinion of someone.)

Thanks but no thanks.

Though, I guess it will invoke in people the right questions and I thank you for that.

Have a good one,

Barnsley

I am sorry you don't see my point. Is there a type of article one could put on THEIR website that would be immoral? I think that is really the first question before we debate the finer points of what constitutes a click bait title and the morality of it.

If you agree with free speech and property ownership, there is nothing really left to say about your question as it obviously would be morally permissible. Here on FDR I think we can assume the vast majority consider free speech and property moral. If you want to get into arguments where they are not such, ok fine, its never stupid to think through different perspectives but you are going to be in a whole different ballgame, ie if you do not accept free speech do you realize the ramifications you are suggesting?