More Annoying Clickbait Tactics

 One of the irritating things about Facebook are its stupid algorithms that decide because you clicked some stupid Comicbook.com or Screen Rant or Collider or whatever article that you must love clickbait articles.  So here's a whole bunch more!  And then it gets worse because some of them are so fucking stupid that you can't help reading it.

In the last few months I've gotten a lot of articles from Cracked.com on my feed.  A few articles have used this tactic of using "facts" that are just mind-numbingly, obviously false.  

For instance, one article was about obvious and easy ways to settle a debate.  In a section on the Enterprise vs. a Star Destroyer, the easy solution is for the Enterprise to just beam everyone off the Star Destroyer.  Hey, good idea...except Star Destroyers have shields!  Just like the goddamned Enterprise, so no you can't just beam everyone off because the transporter wouldn't be able to go through the fucking shields!  Anyone who knows even the most rudimentary things about ships in Star Wars would know that.  But, hey, I guess you got me to read your dumb article, so good one.

An article I didn't click said in the preview that since Star Trek ships are going at the speed of light, time for everyone on board would be frozen but not for the rest of the universe so years could go by anytime they go anywhere.  Yeah, that's not how "warp" drive works, dumbass.  The warp bubble allows the ships to go faster than light speed and negates the time dilation effect.

Another Star Wars related one was the "fact" Luke would have frozen to death if he spent the whole night in the Tauntaun.  Except as someone pointed out, Han says he's just putting him in there "until he gets the shelter built."  The next morning when the snowspeeder finds them, you can see the shelter Han put together.  So obviously Luke wasn't in there all night.  So that wasn't Hollywood's mistake--it was the article writer's mistake.

You have to wonder if the writers are just too lazy to even do the most basic research on Wikipedia or Wookieepedia or whatever the Star Trek equivalent is or if they're actively trolling people.  The thinking might be that if they post something that's so obviously false, people will react and respond and maybe click stuff.  The downside, like with Screen Rant's "Marvel's Superman" bullshit, is it makes you look like a complete moron.  Because that is pretty basic shit for fans.  I mean, I'm not a Comic Book Guy-type superfan of either franchise and I know that shit.  Then I feel like a nerd because why do I know that and you, a somewhat "professional" writer, clearly don't?

If it's not intentional, then these writers need to find another line of work because writing about pop culture is clearly not for them.  I'm just saying.

While I'm at it, another annoying tactic that Comicbook.com has been using is to say, "[streaming service or network] has [cancelled or added] this fan favorite show [or movie]!"  The idea is you're supposed to click the article to find out what's been cancelled or added.  Usually some hero will put it in the comments so you don't have to actually read it--sometimes I'm that hero.  A few times the writer screws it up by putting the name of the show in the first line so it shows up on the preview so I don't have to actually read the article.

Sometimes it's funny then because the "fan favorite" or "cult favorite" is something I've never heard of.  That happens a lot with Netflix shows since I haven't used that in almost 4 years.

Those articles are pretty pathetic just because it's so obvious what they're trying to do.  It feels so desperate.  It's like when you're a kid and a sibling or someone on the playground crows, "I know something you don't know!"

I suppose a lot of this could be avoided if instead of relying on ad clicks, these sites just had fundraising drives and people actually gave them money to function.  But would I do that?  Probably not.  In large part because these sites don't really generate much that is of value.