Digg, Reddit, and the Culture of Rage

Cracked.com recently published an article entitled "7 Reasons the 21st Century Is Making You Miserable," by David Wong. The article was phenomenally successful on both Digg and Reddit, garnering over 300 Reddit points and 4500 Diggs as of this writing. Today we take a look at some relevant insights the article might contain for us.

As of late, Cracked.com has been on a very successful streak, with many insightful and humorous articles getting pushed to Digg's front page (most of them being "Top #" lists.) While Cracked.com's model of producing entertaining articles for a captive audience already points to one method of successful online marketing through social networking, Wong's article also indicates one way many sites vie for attention. Under point 6, "We're Victims of the Outrage Machine," Wong writes:

We are physically better off today in every possible way in which such things can be measured ... but you sure as hell wouldn't know that if you're getting your news online. Why? Well, ask yourself: If some music site posts an article called, "Fall Out Boy is a Fine Band" and on the same day posts another one called, "Fall Out Boy is the Shittiest Fucking Band of the Last 100 Years, Say Experts," which do you think will get the most traffic? The second one wins in a blowout. Outrage manufactures word-of-mouth.

The news blogs many of you read? The people running them know the same thing. Every site is in a dogfight for traffic (even if they don't run ads, they still measure their success by the size of their audience) and so they carefully pick through the wires for the most inflammatory story possible. The other blogs start echoing the same story from the same point of view. If you want, you can surf all day and never swim out of the warm, stagnant waters of the "aren't those bastards evil" pool.

Wong's article is both humorous and resonant. It's true: Many of the stories that get the most airtime either contain rants or insults. Sometimes they also attempt to induce their readers to get angry (all these linked Digg stories were found just from the last 24 hours). It's an unfortunate fact of life that strong emotions, and more often negative strong emotions, are those that get the most attention and generate word of mouth. They are also, arguably, the most interesting articles and opinions.

The question becomes: Should we, as a community, embrace this trend and pile onto the outrage bandwagon in the quest for traffic? Or should we try and hold on to a sense of genuineness and centrism in the face of outrage? I don't have a definite answer to this; it's often true that anger is what opens our eyes to new opinions, or gets things done in this world. But ultimately, I think it's important to emphasize that there are more important things than getting onto the front page of Digg. And sometimes, all the anger just isn't worth it.

Photo by dariuszka

Enjoy the post? Here are some more that may interest you.

There are no trackbacks for this post yet.

Brett Borders, September 21, 2007

Great article!

The rage is particularly strong at Reddit these days. No more good times, all terror and Tasers.

Alex @ DataPencil, September 21, 2007

Great insight... I couldn't agree more. It would be so nice if you could get a lot of traffic just by telling happy, uplifting stories. Hey, maybe you can - there's a challenge! Lets' see who can successfully produce a fun uplifting blog that gets dugg a lot. I'd love to see how they would do it and reverse this trend!

Patrix, September 21, 2007

Well put. In the constant drive for creating the most shocking or sensational content in hope for attracting traffic, blogs are going the way of the today's mainstream media.

Marko Novak, September 22, 2007

We could all write articles only to get on front pages of Digg, Reddit,...

But I've stopped thinking about traffic and started to write content I'm passioned about.

HMTKSteve, September 22, 2007

If it bleeds it leads...

Peace sells, but who's buying?

Gabriel Goldenberg, September 23, 2007

I agree that it's pretty lame linkbaiting personally, though I disagree with you that all the a-listers are fighting to be the most sensationalist. Consider Darren Rowse, who was writing about BlogRush and everyone coming down on them and how it was similar to the hate Chitika got at first.

By the way, you may care to check out the link my name is tied to, as it mentions some Pronet linkbait, which wasn't sensationalist. Also, it shares why I think these sorts of things get ignored with time. (In short, because you get marked as a hater and marginalized, then ignored along with the ambient noise.)

David Chen, September 24, 2007

I never said that all the a-listers are fighting to be the most sensationlist. I just said that "Many of the stories that get the most airtime either contain rants or insults." Obviously many top blogs get by fine without vitriol, but for people with websites just starting out, it can be difficult to differentiate yourself without it.

askthecrowd, September 25, 2007

It is far easier to be sensationalist if you're writing about negative things. Therefore it's way too tempting for people to resist doing!

bipolar2, September 28, 2007

"Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make demented."

Sheree Motiska, February 17, 2008

I'm with you in the quest to see who can get the most diggs with uplifting stories. THAT would be really controversial.

I kinda went on a murderous spree on YouTube and Digg this weekend leaving comments telling fake "web 2.0 marketing experts" their days were numbered. It was pretty fun actually. But only for a little bit. Anger is utterly exhausting.

I balanced it out by checking out some of my favorite happy blogs. I read a lovely post about how being true to yourself while building a business is ok and you will be just fine if you go at what you're naturally good at.

I feel better now. I'm ready to go beddy-bye. I'm not ready to be that irate again for a long time.

Night Night,

Sheree