The title implies (well, I'd say explicitly states with the word "vetting") that restaurants are trying to filter guests, maybe to avoid troublesome ones with uncouth posts online or something. And many of the comments are replying to that interpretation, based on the unfairness suggested in the title. It's not only clickbait, it's outrage bait, designed to spark anger.
The article itself is about how restaurants have gone above and beyond for some guests where they've been able to tell from their social media that they're celebrating a special occasion or some other thing like that. To make the guests' experience better and memorable.
There's a privacy angle to this, should restaurants do that, slippery slope, etc etc... but many of the comments aren't talking about that. They're responding to the inflammatory title.
I don't think we often get such a clear picture into the why behind online outrage and how clearly manufactured it can often be. I think it's easy to believe people are angry for a good reason, to take the anger "on good faith" in some sense. In this case, with the title being so far from the article, it's clear to see what's going on. And makes one wonder about the rest of the outrage out there.
I couldn’t agree more. Half the reason I posted it was the aggressive title; I was curious to see what would happen, and it was precisely what I expected heh.
The other half of the reason was that I really did think it was an interesting article. But having to keep the title the same was a fascinating social experiment.
You know how you sometimes read a title or a topic and you can infer the kind of commentary a particular topic will have? Even going so far as to expect words like “enshittification” to be used for both stating a point as well as for in-group signaling? Sort of like how opinions are front-loaded even if the article was read? (And very often the opinions are things we’ve heard before from many other people, this is a given).
Well, we’ve entered a period in manufactured outrage on the internet where an audience is primed ahead of time with talking points and perspectives that are deemed allowed, and then these reflexes are triggered over and over by the same kind of articles. And it’s the frenzy that counts.
It used to be confined to FB and other places but the average commenter has changed and so the average commentary has changed.
Articles are increasingly becoming rage bait, moreso than clickbait. I do not know what the appeal is yet but I imagine it’s some mixture of impulsivity that online commenting has enabled, combined with commenters thinking their take is valid/important/whatever. Maybe narcissistic but I can’t say for sure. At any rate, it’s another good way to destroy a community - especially one with self reinforcing mechanism like voting that basically ensures you’re on rails (with apologies to dhh)
