[ncallaway]

I think there are two different definitions of clickbait that people are operating with.

One definition (maybe close to what your definition might be) is "a title written with the intent of getting people to click on it".

I think the other definition that many people hold would be something like: "a *misleading* title with the intent of getting people to click on it".

So, if someone thinks of clickbait as requiring some element of deception, misdirection, or other very mild fraud, then this wouldn't fit that category. I think that's why people are talking past each other a bit.

[dumbo-octopus]

"A title written with the intent of getting people to click on it" describes every title ever. What professional whose livelihood is dependent on people interacting with their work would possibly ever title their work in a way that dissuades people from interacting with it? Clickbait needs to be something more than simply "an interesting title" for the term to have any meaning at all.

[BHSPitMonkey]

Clickbait describes the replacement of traditional news headlines (a summary of what happened, e.g. "Tulsa high school student defeats chess grandmaster at tournament") with mystery lead-ins designed to leave you wanting to know what thing happened (e.g. "What this high school student did will SHOCK you", or "This high school student just changed EVERYTHING about chess").

For the YouTube video in question, I guess it hinges on whether you recognize the device in the thumbnail you're looking at. If you do, then the title is giving away the lede and letting you have the takeaway if that's all you're looking for. If not, then you could argue that leaving out the product's name is clickbait-y.