[adamrezich]

I have not read the article (and don't intend to) but this here headline is an astoundingly well-crafted work of attention-catching rage-bait art. in eleven mere words, you get:

- Facebook (fuck em)

- giving collected personal data (fuck that) to

- the police (fuck em) because

- a teen had an abortion (fuck yeah(?))

- and needs to be prosecuted because said teen presumably lives somewhere where this is illegal (fuck em)

once you get used to instinctively breaking these things and evaluating the way they emotionally manipulate you to click on them to read more, it's like "seeing the code" in The Matrix, you don't even need to read the article anymore because you've already parsed the intended emotional payload, and from there you can choose whether or not to digest it.

[lukewrites]

While it's a clickable headline it isn't near as inflammatory as it could be; "the data" is a very anodyne way to refer to "Facebook Messenger conversation between mother and daughter".

[llanowarelves]

Vice is one of the best at it. Read their comment section on fb. The comments are almost all the gut response they wanted to elicit from the headline. Even in the cases when their own full piece is different.

Purely from a people-programming standpoint, I respect them as masters at it.

It's not just Vice either. But the info-tainment nature of the brand seems to lend itself really well to it.

[teachrdan]

But perhaps you want to read the article to learn the facts of what happened?

[adamrezich]

why?

[paulryanrogers]

To be well informed of laws and their impact in communities much like your own

[adamrezich]

if someone came up to you on the street frothing at the mouth and ranting overemotionally, using buzzwords and -phrases to try to get your attention and work you up such that your emotional state matches their own, would you stop and listen to what facts they had to convey?