engaging with something is perpetuating it. that’s how rage-bait works. the more people comment the more it spreads. content doesn’t have to be good, it just needs people to engage with it
I see why you’re getting at, but I think you’re mistaken.
Rage-bait works by evoking a reaction. It spreads because people become incensed and then feel the need to share the reason for their anger.
This is the opposite of reaction. It is a calm response to the OP explaining why they are reacting to rage-bait and inviting them to reconsider their posting.
i see your point too, but i also think you’re mistaken.
engaging is any time of interaction whatsoever. i could go to a ragebait and go into the comments and calmly and politely explain xyz. But
a) in social media sites where algorithms are used the post I’m commenting on will be more likely to show up on other people’s screens. because social media sites want engagement- doesn’t have to be positive and
b) even in social media sites where there is no algorithm (like the one we’re speaking on) people are more likely to click on a comment section the larger the number of comments are. no point in clicking on the comment section if there’s 0 or 1 comments. every comment is an indirect increase to the visibility and probability of engagement with future users
while I do agree with you that there are different levels of engagement- either way you are engaging.
it probably does indirectly. users are probably more likely to go into the comment section if they see a larger number of comments. no reason to go there if it’s empty
Why would you comment in this thread? It increases visibility of the video and gets it seen by more people.
It’s okay if you do. That is free speech.
This is not a free speech issue. The commenter makes a worthwhile point, and your point meanwhile is incorrect. Critique is not the same as reaction.
engaging with something is perpetuating it. that’s how rage-bait works. the more people comment the more it spreads. content doesn’t have to be good, it just needs people to engage with it
I see why you’re getting at, but I think you’re mistaken.
Rage-bait works by evoking a reaction. It spreads because people become incensed and then feel the need to share the reason for their anger.
This is the opposite of reaction. It is a calm response to the OP explaining why they are reacting to rage-bait and inviting them to reconsider their posting.
i see your point too, but i also think you’re mistaken.
engaging is any time of interaction whatsoever. i could go to a ragebait and go into the comments and calmly and politely explain xyz. But
a) in social media sites where algorithms are used the post I’m commenting on will be more likely to show up on other people’s screens. because social media sites want engagement- doesn’t have to be positive and
b) even in social media sites where there is no algorithm (like the one we’re speaking on) people are more likely to click on a comment section the larger the number of comments are. no point in clicking on the comment section if there’s 0 or 1 comments. every comment is an indirect increase to the visibility and probability of engagement with future users
while I do agree with you that there are different levels of engagement- either way you are engaging.
This isn’t YouTube; comments don’t count towards the visibility of the post. Upvoting the post does.
it probably does indirectly. users are probably more likely to go into the comment section if they see a larger number of comments. no reason to go there if it’s empty