The term “clickbait” is composed of the English words “click” and “bait”. It refers to irresistible headlines, teasers, or preview images that use emotive or sensationalist wording to pique the reader’s curiosity and get them to click on a link (often clickbait serves as a kind of click/view/readership bait for a given medium). The goal is to elicit as many clicks as possible, even if the content of the article doesn’t deliver what the headline promises.

Clickbait articles may seem harmless at first glance, but their impact depends on the content and purpose. In some cases, they serve only to attract readers, which can be harmless if they offer relevant or at least entertaining information, light-hearted stories, or trivial advice (which actually does not cause any harm, you just lose your time). On the other hand, clickbait can be very dangerous if it spreads misinformation, manipulates public opinion incites fear and hatred, or contains and provides guaranteed (yet unproven) health advice.

Their aim is often not to inform, but to get as many clicks as possible, which can lead to the spread of distorted or outright false messages that influence and often motivate harmful behavior both for individuals and society as a whole.

Why is clickbait dangerous and harmful?

The danger of clickbait lies precisely in its ability to spread misinformation. Articles that contain false information or deliberately misrepresent the facts can cause panic, confuse the public, or undermine trust in credible sources. This is particularly serious in health issues, where clickbait often offers ‘guaranteed advice’ or ‘revolutionary discoveries’ that are not scientifically based. Claims such as “This home remedy will get you rid of cancer” or “5 natural ways to replace vaccinations” can discourage people from seeking real medical help and lead them to worsen their health condition or wrongly downplay their health problems/complications.

However, clickbait articles do not only threaten health but also social relationships. Manipulative content that incites fear, anger, or hatred, such as headlines like “This group of people is threatening our future!”, can polarise society and worsen interpersonal relationships. In addition, clickbait is often aimed at manipulating public opinion, especially on political or controversial issues, thereby influencing readers’ opinions and behavior.

The impact of clickbait is not just individual but has wider societal implications. The spread of untruths or half-truths can undermine trust in science, the media, and authority. The loss of credibility of information leads to chaos where it is difficult to distinguish the truth from the false. That is why it is important to be critical when reading clickbait articles, to verify sources, and not take information as fact without further thought. A properly informed reader can reduce the negative impact of these articles on themselves and those around them.

Typical characteristics of clickbait headlines are as follows:

• Eliciting emotions by using trigger words in headlines and captions such as “shocking”, and  “unbelievable” (“You have to know it”, “You won’t believe it”).
• Sensationalism and superlatives (e.g. “the greatest discovery of all time”) are used to pique the reader’s curiosity.
• Clickabits omit important information to create suspense (e.g. “You won’t believe what happened next…”) and to make the reader click on the headline and become more interested in the article.
• Direct address to readers using phrases such as (e.g. “You have to see this!”) is also used extensively.

Unlike serious journalism, where the headline should succinctly summarize the core of the content, clickbaiting is focused solely on maximizing the number of clicks. Journalistic standards are often disregarded in clickbait and a distorted or very abbreviated presentation of the facts is accepted.

How do you spot clickbait articles?

To avoid falling for clickbait articles and to distinguish between reputable and dubious sources, companies should look out for the following signs:

Exaggerated or cryptic headlines

• Typical clickbait headlines often promise “shocking truths”, “hidden tricks” or “guaranteed methods” that sound too good to be true. For example, “A cure for cancer has been discovered, but the drug companies are keeping it secret!”
• Headlines can also be too general: “Don’t you like the cold? See what surprises you!”

Lack of content and specific facts

• Lack of concrete facts, speculation, and conjecture – clickbait usually does not bring a new perspective on the topic or a deeper understanding of the issue. Instead, they use general phrases such as “scientists say”, “experts warn” or “this will shock you” without specifying who these scientists or experts are and on what basis they base their conclusions. Such an approach leads the reader to believe that he or she has learned something important when the actual content of the article does not add any value. Instead of factual data or expert opinion, they are full of conjecture, speculation, and opinion. Instead of objectively informing, clickbait often provokes emotional reactions through speculation or unverified assumptions. For example, an article with the headline “This simple change will get rid of 10 kilos in a week!” usually contains only vague recommendations or tips that are not supported by any scientific studies. The reader may be misled and subsequently disappointed.
• Artificially stretched content – to maximize the number of ad impressions, clickbait often breaks content into several short pages. Each of these pages contains only a small section of text or a few sentences, forcing the reader to continually click through to the ‘next page’. This trick is purely to increase advertising revenue, not to better inform readers.
• Superficial or misleading treatment of the topic – articles of this type often offer only a superficial view of the topic, which can be especially problematic for more complex or technical issues. They focus on sensationalist details or misleading interpretations rather than clarifying the substance of the issue. This not only distorts reality but also contributes to the spread of myths and misunderstandings.

Unreliable or unknown or no sources

• If an article comes from an unverified website or media outlet with no history of serious journalism, it is a good idea to be wary. If the article comes from an unverified (i.e., not yet known to you) website or media outlet with no history of serious journalism, a healthy skepticism is in order and your critical thinking needs to be engaged. When in doubt, you should always read the entire article and make your own impression of the quality and relevance of the content. Because often such clickbait sites only pursue sensationalism and profit from ads without paying attention to the quality and veracity of the content.
• Clickbait articles may link to sources that are non-existent, unverified, or even biased. A common tactic is to cite fictitious “studies” whose author and institution are not traceable. Another strategy is to take real data out of context, distort it, or deliberately use only those pieces of information that support the article’s predetermined conclusion. For example, the sentence “A study has shown that certain foods increase the risk of cancer” may be based on a laboratory experiment on cells under conditions that do not apply to real life. Such an approach seems plausible but misinforms. Some clickbait sites don’t even bother to cite any sources, relying on an emotive headline designed to engage the reader so much that they don’t check the content. The absence of clear and transparent references to sources such as scientific articles, reputable media, or official institutions should always raise doubts. Misrepresentations are particularly dangerous on health and political issues as they can influence individual behavior and public opinion. Articles with manipulative sources can lead to unnecessary scaremongering, the spread of myths and misinformation, or wrong decisions – for example, if they recommend “miracle cures” without scientific basis or deliberately attack specific individuals or groups.
• How to defend yourself – or rather, how to verify information?
  • Always check that the article cites specific sources.
  • If sources are cited, make sure they are credible, such as scientific studies, official statistics, or reputable media.
  • Be wary of overly generalized references, such as “scientists say” or “studies show”, without providing further details or links to the sources of information.
  • Be wary of out-of-context quotes that may be out of context and serve only to support a manipulative conclusion.

Disparity between headline and content

• The disparity between headlines and content is one of the main characteristics of clickbait articles. Headlines are designed to draw the reader in at all costs – often promising shocking revelations, groundbreaking information, or guaranteed advice. However, the content itself usually doesn’t live up to these promises. Often, the article contains only basic information that is commonly known or covers a completely different topic than the headline suggests. This approach deliberately exploits the reader’s curiosity to get clicks, with the actual value of the content being secondary. This mismatch can take several forms. For example, the headline “This Simple Trick Will Save You Thousands a Month!” may lead to an article that simply advises to regularly check your home energy consumption – which is not a groundbreaking revelation. Another example might promise a shocking video or scandalous information that either doesn’t exist or is only superficially mentioned in the article, without deeper explanation or factual data.
• The disparity between the headline and the content does not only bring disappointment to the reader. This approach undermines trust in sources of information and can contribute to a loss of orientation in the public sphere, where it is increasingly difficult to distinguish serious journalism from manipulative content. At the same time, these types of articles distract attention from truly important issues by focusing on bombastic but empty stories. This practice has a long-term impact not only on individual readers but also on the overall quality of the media. Headlines that promise more than an article delivers not only confuse readers but also contribute to the degradation of the information space, where quantity trumps quality. As a result, readers become frustrated and, after several similar experiences, stop trusting the media, which can lead to the spread of misinformation and other negative phenomena.
  • Thus, the disparity between headlines and content is not just about disappointing readers but also undermines the basic principles of reporting – accuracy, credibility, and respect for the reader’s intelligence. To avoid this, it is necessary to be critical of headlines that promise too much, and to always check the content and sources before relying on the information.

Reasons for using clickbait

Click baiting is a deliberately designed mechanism to attract as many readers as possible to a particular page. The main goal is to maximize the number of clicks, page views and thus advertising revenue, whether through banners, affiliate programs, or paywalls. In the era of digital content, where the user’s attention is a very scarce commodity, media companies are resorting to the use of increasingly attractive and engaging headlines.

The reasons why clickbait is so prevalent:

• Generating ad revenue – the more people click on an article, the more ad impressions the site gets, which directly increases its revenue.
• Fierce competition for attention – the entire Internet is oversaturated with content and media outlets need to stand out to secure readers. Eye-catching headlines are an effective tool to achieve this goal.
• Luring emotional responses – headlines that arouse curiosity, outrage,ge or shock are designed to immediately grab attention and motivate clicks.
• Short-term gain at the expense of quality – instead of building reader trust over the long term, clickbait focuses on immediate success. Truthfulness and quality of content are often secondary.
• Lack of regulation – there are no effective penalties for misleading or deceptive headlines, allowing clickbaiting to thrive without much consequence.

However, this approach often sidelines journalistic standards and principles. Truthful and quality information tends to be replaced by sensationalism, without taking into account the long-term consequences for the credibility of the media. Click baiting follows the logic of short-term profit, not building credibility and value for readers.

The consequence is that even reputable media can succumb to pressure and adapt their strategies to clickbait practices to remain competitive. However, this undermines the core mission of journalism – to provide truthful, relevant, and valuable information.

The dangers of clickbait for serious journalismClick baitingg is not just a problem of individual disappointed readers who do not find in an article what the headline promised. Far more serious are the long-term consequences for the credibility of the media and the quality of public discourse. If readers repeatedly encounter misleading or exaggerated headlines, their trust not only in a particular media outlet but also in journalism as a whole will begin to erode.

This loss of trust has far-reaching consequences. Readers who stop trusting the media may be more susceptible to misinformation and fake news that presents itself as ‘alternative sources of truth’. This phenomenon undermines the media’s role as guardians of objective information and creates room for the spread of half-truths and manipulations.

Another problem is that misleading headlines can affect the way people remember information. Studies show that many readers only remember keywords or impressions from a headline without being familiar with the full content of the article. Even if the article itself disproves the false headline, the initial impression often lingers. This can lead to misinformation becoming entrenched in public discourse and complicate objective debate on the topic.

Moreover, clickbait practices promote the polarisation of society. Scandalous and emotive headlines that aim to elicit strong reactions can lead to sharpening differences of opinion and make rational discussion difficult. Instead of substantive solutions to problems, public discourse is often limited to emotional and simplistic arguments that further complicate the situation.

This trend threatens not only the quality of the media but also the health of a democratic society that depends on informed and critical citizens. This puts serious journalism in the difficult position of trying to compete with clickbait media without sacrificing its values. But without reader trust and an emphasis on truthfulness, it loses its core mission.

Media accountability and alternatives to clickbait

Reputable media have a fundamental responsibility – to provide relevant, reliable, and truthful information. This task involves not only the accurate production of content but also making conscious decisions about how they present information. Headlines are often the reader’s first contact with an article, so their wording is crucial. While it is legitimate to use headlines to emphasize a topic and generate interest, ethical journalism should avoid exaggeration or manipulation that promises more than the article delivers.

The line of click baiting is crossed when a headline promises a sensation that the article fails to deliver. Such a practice not only undermines the trust of readers but also damages the reputation of the medium itself. Media operators should prioritize long-term credibility over short-term click-throughs.

Quality and relevance of content should be at the forefront instead of sensationalist reporting. Readers today increasingly value factual and balanced reporting that not only reports events but also provides context, explains causes, and offers a broader perspective. A key element of responsible journalism is also the rigorous separation of fact froopinion soso hat it is clear to the reader what is objective information and what is interpretation.

Another important aspect is the strengthening of media literacy. Readers should be educated on how to approach the media critically, to recognize dubious sources and misleading headlines. Companies and educational institutions can contribute by organizing training or courses that focus on analyzing media content and developing the ability to assess the credibility of information.

Constructive journalism as a promising approach

One inspiring approach to combat clickbait culture is the concept of constructive journalism. This form of journalism focuses not only on highlighting socially important issues but also on presenting possible solutions and constructive perspectives.

Instead of the negativity and dramatization of issues that are typical of clickbait stories, constructive journalism emphasizes positive, inspiring stories. This approach deliberately omits manipulative headlines and sensationalist wording that could mislead readers. Instead, it relies on thoroughly researched information, careful analysis, and sophisticated language.

The aim is not only to inform, but also to encourage readers to think for themselves, inspire them to find solutions, and motivate them to take positive action. This type of journalism seeks to strengthen the trust between the media and readers by offering valuable and constructive contributions that have long-term benefits for society.

Studies show that readers perceive articles that offer solutions as more valuable and credible. Such stories not only strengthen readers’ engagement but also restore their trust in journalism. This approach is already being successfully applied by some reputable media houses and specialist online platforms – unfortunately, there are very few such responsible media platforms yet, and platforms like Meta or X (formerly Twitter) are not very good at it (although Community Notes on X help to provide more relevant information, there is still the fact that the network is owned by Elon Musk, who is rightly regarded as one of the world’s biggest disinformers and is gradually bending this social network to his advantage – including the algorithm of his posts, and Community Notes itself can, of course, be manipulated as well, albeit a bit more complicated).

What concerns do I have about Community Notes X? We’re still relying on an algorithm here to decide whether a community note has received enough positive feedback to be accepted, and we don’t know who the author of the note is, or whether there’s any conflict of interest on the part of the writer – Wikipedia suffers from a similar affliction, by the way, which has thousands of moderators, but also a large number of people/PR agencies and freelancers, who are constantly trying to influence public opinion with their work and try publish or edit content on Wikipedia for money (which better aligns with the interests of the company they represent, especially if the expressed views or opinions are considered problematic from the company point of view), which again just means that this source simply cannot be fully relied upon.

Community comments are, in short, a kind of Potemkin village of “fighting misinformation” on Twitter. I would agree that having community notes is better than not having them if they were the only two options available. However, removing tweets with misinformation is a much more effective type of action to prevent the spread of misinformation. The very existence of community notes makes it very easy for Twitter management to report on how they are fighting misinformation, even though the owner of Twitter knows that this is not the maximum effective solution. In the languages and countries available, they only appear for a small subset of tweets that need them, and when they do appear, it’s usually after a long delay after the main damage has been done (most of the reach was achieved by the misinformation tweet before the note was added). In addition, still, the vast majority of tweets with lesser reach lack any community notes, and these can have a large combined reach. In fact, for these smaller tweets, fact-checking and note-taking is a rather cumbersome process that requires much more energy than writing a misinformation tweet alone.

Constructive journalism shows that it is possible to engage readers without manipulation or exaggeration. It provides valuable information that has the potential to change the way people think about problems and their solutions while restoring trust in the media as a key actor in a democratic society.

The link between clickbait and fake news

One of the most serious manifestations of clickbait culture is “fake news” – deliberately created false or misleading news that masquerades as serious reporting. Here, misleading headlines do not just act as a lure, but as a means to manipulate and spread misinformation. These messages often appeal to readers’ emotions – provoking fear, range,r or curiosity – and thus ensure a high level of sharing and interaction.

Why are fake news and clickbait so closely linked?

• Tempting headlines as a tool for manipulation – fake news relies on clickbait headlines to draw readers into a fake story. These headlines often exaggerate or deliberately misrepresent the content to generate as much interest as possible, even if the article itself contains unsubstantiated or completely false information.
• Sharing without verification – Many users share articles based on the headline without reading the content. In this way, misleading news spreads very quickly. This phenomenon is compounded by social networking algorithms that favor posts with high interaction rates – regardless of their veracity.
• Creating filter bubbles – social media algorithms often display content that matches the user’s interests and opinions. This leads to the creation of ‘filter bubbles’ where people are shown content that reinforces their existing worldview, even if it is based on misinformation. In such an environment, fake news becomes even more convincing because it is not confronted with objective facts or opposing views.
• Emotional manipulation – Fake news often uses emotionally charged language that targets basic human fears such as fear, insecurity, or frustration. These emotions motivate users to share content, making misinformation spread even faster.

The link between clickbait and fake news has far-reaching implications. Not only does it undermine trust in the media as a whole, but it also contributes to the polarisation of society. People who read and share misleading articles are less willing to accept alternative viewpoints or facts, making public debate and problem-solving more difficult.

Fake news can also have very concrete effects on politics, public health, and the economy. For example, the spread of false information about vaccinations, pandemics, or economic issues can lead to decisions based on fear or misunderstood facts.

How to combat the link between fake news and clickbait?

• Increase media literacy – users should be educated on spotting misleading headlines and verifying information sources. Critical thinking is key to detecting fake news.
• Responsibility of platforms – social networks should play an active role in detecting and curbing the spread of misinformation. This includes flagging suspicious content, collaborating with fact-checkers, and making algorithms transparent.
• Promoting quality journalism – reputable media must invest in quality content and build trust with readers. At the same time, it is important to emphasize the difference between reputable and dubious sources.
• Regulation – legislators can introduce legislation to penalize the deliberate dissemination of misinformation while protecting freedom of expression and a balanced approach to content regulation is key.

Why isn’t content regulation the way to go either?

Regulation aimed at ppenalizingthe spread of misinformation presents many pitfalls that make it difficult to implement effectively. One of the main problems is the very definition of what constitutes “fake news”. Distinguishing between deliberately disseminated false information and a mere error, inaccuracy or expression of a different opinion can be very difficult. What may be interpreted as disinformation from one perspective may be seen by others as legitimate criticism or an alternative view of an issue.

Another challenge is the question of who has the right to decide what is true and what is not. If regulation is entrusted to state institutions, there may be a risk of abuse of power. In extreme cases, this could lead to censorship or suppression of uncomfortable views, which would be in direct contradiction with freedom of expression and democratic principles. On the other hand, if this task is delegated to private companies such as social networks, questions arise about the transparency of their decision-making and possible bias.

The technical implementation of the regulation is also complex. Algorithms designed to detect and limit the spread of misinformation can be imprecise and ineffective. For example, they can flag even legitimate information as ‘fake news’, leading to unfair removal of content and further undermining trust in news platforms. Conversely, some genuine misinformation may go unnoticed, especially if it is created in a sophisticated manner.

It is also important to ensure that regulation does not restrict freedom of expression and hinder open debate. The ability to express an opinion, even if it is unpopular or controversial, is a fundamental pillar of a democratic society. Regulation that goes too far could lead to self-censorship, where people are afraid to share their views for fear of being labeled as spreading misinformation.

Ultimately, regulating the spread of misinformation is a very sensitive and complex task that requires a balanced approach. It must ensure that the public space is protected from harmful influences, but at the same time respect freedom of expression and the independence of the media. Without clear rules, transparency, and accountability of those who are supposed to decide on content, it could bring more problems than solutions. The challenge is therefore to create a regulatory framework that is fair, effective,e and in line with democratic principles.

In summary, click baiting may generate high traffic numbers in the short term, but it is not compatible with the principles of serious and credible journalism. In the long term, misleading, highly abbreviated headlines damage the reputation of the media and degrade the quality of social discourse.

Companies that are aware of this problem can set a good example in their publications by not using clickbait in their communications. It is equally important to promote media literacy in society to strengthen their ability to critically assess content.

Media operators should focus on relevant, balanced content and constructive journalism rather than succumbing to the temptation of sensationalist headlines. Binding standards and effective regulatory approaches also appear necessary to curb clickbait and fake news. After all, journalism can only fulfill its main task – providing the public with reliable information that enables them to form an informed opinion – if readers can trust that they are being told the truth in the headlines.