
No, Spooning Isn’t Sexist. The Internet Is Just Broken - de_Selby
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/04/no-spooning-isn-t-sexist-the-internet-is-just-broken.html
======
im3w1l
There is a (probably not entirely legal) consumer solution:
[http://unvis.it](http://unvis.it)

"What the tool does is to try to capture the content of an article or blog
post without passing on your visit as a pageview. Effectively this means that
you're not paying with your attention, so you can read and share the idiocy
that it contains."

~~~
romseb
Isn't this just pushing the problem away from us? The problem being: Why do I
still click on an article even if I know it will not be worth my time,
attention and energy in any way.

"Effectively this means that you're not paying with your attention". I don't
see how this is true. The owner of the website might just _think_ I don't pay
with my attention. But I did.

------
organsnyder
This is hardly new. Slate's entire brand is built on these sort of contrarian,
antagonistic viewpoints. A large portion of their content can simply be boiled
down to "you're doing it wrong" or "something you like is terrible." They've
followed this model for most of their 20-year existence.

This goes back well before Slate, though: The term "yellow journalism" was
coined in the late 1800's.

~~~
soylentcola
And for a more modern take, just look at the magazines in the supermarket
checkout line at any time in the past several decades. You've got the more
"classic" tabloids with the equivalent of clickbait headlines about actors and
entertainers. You've got the women's and men's mags telling you why you're not
screwing enough or dressing/exercising/eating the right way. Then you have the
more self-aware stuff like Weekly World News and The Enquirer with their UFOs
and CIA abductions and Elvis sightings.

I find these "clickbait" stories to be the natural evolution of the same type
of sensationalism that's been used to sell papers and magazines or get you to
stick around for the full story at 11.

------
JimmyM
Other articles trending on The Daily Beast:

> "The Alabama Granny Murder-For-Hire Plot" > "Attack Of The Kate Upton
> Clones" > "The Internet Is Just Broken"

...oh wait, that last one... It's not an issue with the internet, Freddie
Starr Ate My Hamster style intriguing/bizarre stories have always been
popular. Hyperbole brings people in, and it's not just about clicks – people
will read stupid stories in The Sun or The Mirror depending on their political
leanings, and feel entertained. Because they're fun, silly stories. I'd hate
to write one myself but that's a personality trait I have, and not necessarily
a positive one.

Also:

> Advertisers have wised up a little bit. There are now party tricks like
> branded content—wherein advertisers pay for stories that are sort of about
> their product, but are also about, say, travel or sports—and advertisers
> sometimes take into account unique visitors within specific demographics,
> based on age, race, and location.

> Tony Haile, the CEO of Chartbeat—the kings of metrics on the Web—tried to
> warn us about this last year.

I'm inclined to think this is a Daily Beast writer and Chartbeat being a bit
cheeky! Hiding in plain sight. Not that I would begrudge them at all. It was a
fun read. Although I disagree with the central premise behind writing it, most
of the actual ideas seemed fine. Time on site is hardly a new concept though,
and engagement in general has been somewhere on the priority list for (for
example) Google for quite a while now.

------
luckycharms810
Ironic that a story about clickbait is clickbait. As you get to the third or
fourth paragraph it turns in to a plug for Chartbeat and simultaneously a hit
piece for Vox.

~~~
nailer
Vox don't need hit pieces, they do it themselves.

------
de_Selby
The next evolution from clickbait lists is intentionally provocative stories
like the one discussed here.

What alternative model can work aside from measuring pure clicks though? Even
"the time on site" solution they mention here (if it were even workable) has
problems, just because I spend a few minutes reading something doesn't mean
it's high quality. Equally high quality content need not necessarily take a
long time to consume.

~~~
johncolanduoni
> just because I spend a few minutes reading something doesn't mean it's high
> quality

Precisely. Attraction to spectacle results in not only clicks on that
"Outrageous Statement X", but also so one can firmly applaud/smugly disdain
it.

And I'm not just pretending its only other people who do this; I'm not proud
but I've fallen into that hole myself.

------
tzs
Comments from earlier discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10514599](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10514599)

------
mschuster91
Other way to read the first part: no matter how ridiculous the point, chances
are high that a huge number of people will read and believe it.

Just look at Donald Trump.

------
codinghorror
I do not feel this belongs on Hacker News?

~~~
de_Selby
Well I thought it might generate some interesting discussion on what
alternative revenue models might work.

~~~
Puts
The interesting question then is why do we have to find another model? Why are
people so hell bent on creating content online? If the business apparently
does not work, why not trying to make and sell flowerpots instead?

~~~
stevetrewick
The business - using click bait headlines and outrage porn to generate ad
revenue - does (or can, at least) work. TFA is complaining that this business
model incentivises shitty content that makes people cross.

Incidentally, this is not a new or unexpected phenomenon, 'traditional' media
marketing bods have understood the principle for decades - the noisier a
channel gets the louder/shriller you have to shout to get people's attention.

