I've noticed this on HN too. When otherwise lightweight stories get a lot of upvotes, the most common cause (probably more than 90% of the time) is that they're something users are indignant about. The more clickbaitish news sites know about this phenomenon and deliberately milk it.
Isn't this also true in real life causes? E.g., I see many more political campaigns gain traction when they invoke the language of impending doom, illustrate a threat to a way of life, and call attention to something outrageous. I can hardly think of any successful cause that was carried on what I would consider positive messaging.
It seems to me that the promise of some great outcome seems either/both unbelievable and easy to defer action toward. But negative outcomes are immediate and demand action now. Negatively-charged stories seem to press all the same buttons -- "can you believe this!?", "this must stop!", "they're at it again!"
the political campaigns that get a surprising amount of traction - as in relative to what you would expect from the political machine, however, tend to point out criticism (which could be construed as "negative") in the context of a greater positivity/aspiration (I'm thinking in 2008 Barack Obama, Ron Paul), so it gets tricky to label things in such black and white negative/positive contexts.
That is almost certainly true, but I doubt that alone would explain it, as people also love to look at cute pictures of animals, list of facts, etc.
So it would seem to me that the more interesting question is why would they like being indignant so much? Does it foster some group cohesion or does it trigger our flight/fight response so that people get a dopamin rush?
Meaning that the derivation of pleasure from indignation is finely honed social trait. We actually like to police ourselves.
So ironically, the "righteous individual against nefarious powers and / or the establishment" turns out to be a mechanism for preserving greater social cohesion.
Jonah Berger at Wharton has done research on WoM and emotions that spread: "But content that evokes certain specific negative emotion, such as anger or anxiety, is also more viral." - https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/faculty/berger/
The main takeaway: "How do specific emotions affect virality? The relationships between specific emotions and virality suggest that the role of emotion in transmission is more complex than mere valence alone (Table 4, Model 3). While more awe-inspiring (a positive emotion) content is more viral and sadness inducing (a negative emotion) content is less viral, some negative emotions are positively associated with virality. More anxiety- and anger-inducing stories are both more likely to make the most e-mailed list. This suggests that transmission is about more than simply sharing positive things and avoiding sharing negative ones. Consistent with our theorizing, content that evokes high-arousal emotions (i.e., awe, anger, and anxiety), regardless of their valence, is more viral."
HN loves drama. Any David vs Goliath story (small time blogger/designer gets ripped off by big corp, someone gets treated wrong by authority figure) gets huge amounts of attention even though it's insignificant on the whole, and hardly "deeply interesting."
Not just HN. Americans in general. And of course, the very paradigm you cite (David & Goliath) is Biblical, meaning it's been popular for at least 2,500 years, give or take.
Humans are confident, fighty creatures who like to beat the odds. Or at least, they like to think of themselves in this way.
Happens in meat space as well. We're quick to accept good things that happen as the status quo and become enraged at minor inconveniences. Someone didn't wait their turn at a 4-way intersection, rage! Waiters who check on you often are just doing their job and those who don't are getting a bad tip. Etc. I personally try to actively fight this instinct but wish positivity could become the norm. Would love advice on how to find that zen.
Anger, being a highly negative, high energy-level emotion, is very contagious.
People respond differentially to positive and negative stimuli, and negative events tend to elicit stronger and quicker emotional, behavioral, and cognitive responses than neutral or positive events. Thus, unpleasant emotions are more likely to lead to mood contagion than are pleasant emotions. Another variable that needs to be taken into account is the energy level at which the emotion is displayed. As higher energy draws more attention to it, the prediction is that the same emotional valence (pleasant or unpleasant) expressed with high energy will lead to more contagion than if expressed with low energy.
This is relatively unsurprising to me, but it's cool to see a study done about it. Think about how quickly faux outrage will spread throughout Twitter or Facebook. How many people do you know posted articles expressing their "disgust" at Miley Cyrus during the VMAs (anger)? Now how many people posted anything congratulatory about their favorite bands that won awards at that same show (happiness)?
The study was conducted on microblog networks in China. The people who use the networks have plenty to be angry about, and few other channels for expressing dissent.
The fine article submitted here correctly notes that this is not a finding about the West, and so the first thing to do to find out how general this phenomenon is is to study the West directly. "Of course, it would be interesting to see whether the same effect can be observed in western networks such as Twitter. That should be relatively straightforward to find out given the growing interest in sentiment analysis and the increasingly effective tools available to carry it out." So, yes, let's see what we find out when other social networks are put to the same test. And let's see what is found in China someday when China has a free press and an open political system.
"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws." -- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
Why would you spread messages of sadness and disgust? I can also see why you would spread messages of joy to friends and family. I can see why you would spread messages of anger to everyone - because you're informing people of situations that you hope to correct.
Tweet SAD: "My rotten car broke down for the last time today. I guess it's the bus for me #YOLO"
Tweet DISGUST: "When I was in line at Starbucks yesterday, the guy behind me puked on my shirt. Ugh. #YOLO"
Tweet JOY: "Looking at the sunset on a Thai beach with the one I love. Thailand has changed me forever. #YOLO"
Tweet ANGER: "Our wonderful police force have gunned down a black man looking for help after crawling out of a car wreck! #YOLO"
