All Online Outrage Is Fake

Remember the "outrage" generated online by the revised logo for Cracker Barrel restaurant? According to a ​new piece this week from the WSJ​, much of the online backlash reportedly driven by angry consumers was actually just bots. Another story this week about the outrage supposedly instigated by the NFL's announcement that Puerto Rican star Bad Bunny would be the halftime performer notes that music star Jay-Z is among a growing number of people suggesting ​that outrage also may be fake​. Put the stories together and the obvious question we should all be asking is whether ALL online outrage may be fake?

Contrast this with the ​news stories this past week about the "No Kings" protests​ across American that drew verified crowds of several million actual people showing up in person and you have a perfect illustration of the modern problem with stories of outrage. They are all counted as the same, when the truth is they really are not. Whether you agree with a protest or not isn't really the point. Millions of real people showing up to have their voices heard and demonstrate their outrage is a far different thing than an algorithmically amplified perception of outrage that is only really fueled by minority opinions.

This is a central problem leading to the ​growing observations that people simply don't trust the media​ anymore, regardless of their ideologies. What's the solution? One possible (though somewhat nuclear) solution is assuming ALL online outrage is fake and measuring the level of actual outrage based on what people do and where they show up in person instead. I'm curious what you think. Would this work or is there some other metric we might apply to gauge for ourselves whether the so-called outrage we often hear about is real or it isn't?