Latest news with #ragebait
The Guardian
19-07-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
‘Rage bait' or good design? The Row's £600 sliders are an exquisite provocation
Rounded, cushioned and with a thick strap, foam sliders have been a familiar sight on feet this summer. While they are available for £30 from Adidas or £3.49 on the online marketplace Temu, a high-fashion version is now also on offer. The Ama sliders, in a choice of black, red or white, were launched by the American fashion brand The Row this week. They cost £600. Laura Reilly, the writer of the influential fashion newsletter Magasin, called them 'The Row's latest rage bait', using the name for posts online designed to provoke anger, and go viral in the process. Fashion's version of rage bait seems to be luxurious versions of everyday things. It remains unclear whether the creators of these items are deliberately provoking a reaction, but the prices certainly drive some consumers into a fury. The Ama follows The Row's other recent item in this tradition: the Dune sandal, otherwise known as flip-flops with a red sole, which cost £670 (they also come with a black sole, as worn by the actor Jonathan Bailey at an event to promote Jurassic World). But the brand is not alone. Items that have prompted similar outrage include a Loewe white vest for £325 and the Italian brand Golden Goose's 'dirty trainers', which cost £435. Balenciaga, during the decade that Demna has been the creative director, has provided copious items here, from £720 Crocs, to a towel 'skirt' that cost £695 and a take on the Ikea Frakta bag for £1,365. Dal Chodha, the pathway leader of Central Saint Martins' fashion communication course, is familiar with the genre. 'This one in particular is brilliant because it's so well positioned for us to take offence, in the most exquisite way,' he says. 'There's an awful lot of [questions] that come out of looking at that shoe. The first is the one that most people ask themselves when they look at [a] work of art or any piece of luxury fashion: 'Why does that cost that much?'' Taking something ordinary and putting it into a different context has a tradition in the visual arts, one that Balenciaga's Demna is definitely influenced by. See Marcel Duchamp's urinal in 1917, Jeff Koons's 1980 vacuum cleaner and Martin Creed's light switch from 2000, all items that have prompted public rage. But if art remains elitist due to the fact that most people can't buy it, everyone wears clothes, so consumers feel more invested when everyday items are sold for higher prices. This has long created a tension; Daniel Rodgers, the fashion news editor at Vogue, describes it as 'an inverse form of snobbery from people who have always been cynical of luxury fashion anyway' – but it is exacerbated by online discourse. 'Everyone's voice is amplified so now we're hearing more from the people that don't get [items such as the Ama],' says Chodha. The wider news cycle is also a factor. 'I'm interested in who's defending that shoe, and is it defendable,' says Chodha. 'I would've been that person a while ago but now with all of the wars happening around the world and all of the economic struggles that we're all going through, I just think this is a bit insane.' Sign up to Fashion Statement Style, with substance: what's really trending this week, a roundup of the best fashion journalism and your wardrobe dilemmas solved after newsletter promotion Rodgers says the flatness of online exacerbates the reaction. 'Fashion is mediated mostly now through onscreen images,' he says. 'In the case of the Balenciaga Ikea shopping bag, you look at a picture of it on the screen and you think 'What? I can pick that up from Ikea for 75p!', but what you don't see on screen is actually leather and it is actually made like a luxury item.' At The Row's store in London's Mayfair on Thursday afternoon, the Ama are not yet on display but a sales associate says they arrived the previous day and have already sold out in the most popular sizes. If the price might raise a lot of eyebrows, it is at home among items such as a simple white T-shirt that costs £510 or a striped silk shirt at £1,530. Like this shirt, which feels memorably soft and luxurious, the quality of the Ama is noticeable: it is lighter and more streamlined than the average foam slider. Although perhaps not enough to justify a price 1,900% above the Adidas design. In this environment, however, this is not the point. 'For an average shopper at The Row that is not expensive,' says Rodgers.
Mail & Guardian
11-06-2025
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
The hidden economy of rage bait on social media has a human cost
The social media economy uses tactics such as rage bait to drive up algorithms, and in this way monetises outrage. In the age of social media commerce, where clicks are currency, anger has now become a commodity that is profitable. It is unlikely that you would scroll on social media for more than 15 minutes without coming across videos depicting confrontations, controversial opinions, political or social outrage and other emotionally charged rants. These posts go viral not because they're helpful or informative, but because they provoke and, as a result, invite a lot of engagements. Rage bait is a manipulation tactic where content is specifically designed to provoke anger, outrage or any form of emotional discontent. This type of content may or may not be fake news, but it is carefully designed to draw strong emotional reactions. Social media amplifies this manipulation tactic by rewarding engagements and attention. At its core, rage bait is backed by algorithms which seek to keep users scrolling, responding and consuming the content, which in turn results in the social media platform profiting. In this way outrage is monetised by the social media platforms. Social media is the new economy, it is no longer just an entertainment, connecting and information sharing space. According to Business Insider, the creator economy was worth $250 billion in 2023. Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment banks in the world, has projected this amount to double by 2027. Social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and TikTok make a lot of money when users spend more time online. In 2024, Facebook introduced the Content monetisation beta program to make it easier for creators to earn money on the site. Andréa Jones, a marketing podcaster states: 'If we see a cat, we're like 'oh, that's cute' and scroll on. But if we see someone doing something obscene, we may type in the comments 'this is terrible', and that sort of comment is seen as a higher quality engagement by the algorithm.' It is for this reason that such content will show up on the users' timeline, feed or fyp and because they have involuntarily consumed the content, they are likely to also react or comment, which feeds into the main purpose of the rage bait. Celebrity blogger Musa Khawula is one such creator who uses rage bait for commercial purposes. In his posts or blogs, he often makes obscene statements, controversial remarks or blunt lies about celebrities, which does get a lot of attention and emotional reactions from other users. The rise and success of MacG's YouTube podcast, Podcast and Chill with MacG, also borders on using rage bait by spewing controversy or making sensational comments to trend and solicit viewership. Winta Zesu, whose content often depicts her as a self-obsessed New York City model, says she made more than $150,000 (R2,667,390) in 2023 from social media. She has since signed brand deals and gained popularity from her rage bait videos. Publications and news outlets have also resorted to this tactic, infusing it with clickbait, another manipulative tactic to get users to click on controversial and sometimes misleading catchy headlines. Although this can be harmful and irresponsible when practiced by news outlets that ought to be trusted with information dissemination to the public, rage bait gets the profits for the publications and news outlets. Outrage, therefore, has become a business model. Rage bait may be commercialised and profitable but it poses harm to social media users. It may cause psychological and emotional harm, misinformation, social fragmentation, damage to public discourse and may even result in desensitisation especially in young people. According to a 2022 meta-analysis published in the journal cyberpsychology , social media use is linked to higher rates of depression among social media users. While there are many contributing factors to this, the eminence of rage bait certainly catalyses some of the contributing factors to these. It is difficult to prevent this manipulation tactic and the law is still not yet fully developed to respond to emerging social media trends. South Africa's legal system is beginning to reckon with the consequences of digital abuse through legislations such as the Cybercrimes Act and the Protection of Personal Information Act. But no legislation directly addresses rage bait or anything similar. There is no regulation holding platforms accountable for the effect on people's mental health and the social damage it causes or for unethically profiting from causing division and harmful engagements. South Africa needs to join global calls for greater algorithmic transparency. Platforms should be held accountable when their systems amplify harmful content. Institutions of learning must teach young people how to recognise emotional manipulation online, and how to critically consume content. Rage bait is often effective because it is subtle, hence users must be equipped to spot it. It is also important to build a creator economy that rewards educational, informative, entertaining, creative and community-driven content that does not harm other fellow users. Shatadi Phoshoko is a candidate attorney at the University of South Africa Law Clinic, master's candidate in corporate law and digital at Unisa and a digital culture observer.
