On Dec. 1, 2025, Oxford Languages announced their 2025 word of the year–ragebait. Each year, a word is chosen by Oxford Languages to best reflect our conversations during that time. The phrase surpassed two other contenders: aura farming and biohack. Though the public had a say in which word was chosen, as over 30,000 people voted between the three choices, controversy was bound to spark. Despite the fact that the phrase tripled in usage during 2025, interest is certainly skewed towards younger generations. This may cause many to wonder–what is the appeal of rage-baiting?
The word was first coined to represent a recurring social media pattern–posts intended to evoke anger. UCSD’s professor of linguistics Andrew Kehler explains that when a phenomenon without a term reoccurs so frequently, it demands a shortened name. Thus, the term “rage-bait” was born, though it has now grown to encapsulate all actions done to provoke others intentionally. Being composed of two common words, the phrase is self-explanatory, allowing for it to catch on extremely quickly.
However, the term is not the only catchy part about rage-baiting. The action itself holds significant cultural value in today’s society. UCSD’s professor of psychology Piotr Winkielman explains the negativity bias–a phenomenon in which humans react more severely to negative emotions than positive ones. When provoked with a negative emotion, we naturally want to react and take action, an instinct that is absent when we experience a positive one. This works hand in hand with the extreme sense of anonymity we feel online, setting humans up naturally to give and take “the bait” online.
“Ragebaiting” also acknowledges a key aspect of social media–engagement. The phrase, “all press is good press,” encompasses this perfectly. The Digital Marketing Institute explains that algorithms are created to sort content, distinguishing between low and high quality and pushing them out to viewers. When posts receive engagement, whether it be likes, comments, or shares, the algorithm will show the post to more people. However, the algorithm does not account for good nor bad engagement. This means that comments–whether positive or negative–count as engagement for the post and creator, giving even more incentive to “ragebait.”
While “ragebaiting” certainly allows another way for creators to spark engagement, the community it fosters is hostile. When humans are both angry and anonymous, it might lead them to express things much more aggressively than intended. Newport Healthcare explains that recurring exposure to “ragebait” online can lead to increased irritability and a worsened nervous system.
Though “ragebaiting” might provide fame, attention or in some cases money, that does not necessarily make it a positive practice. Sacrificing the mental health of others for small rewards should not be normalized, especially when it begins to affect physical health as well.
“Ragebait” does not deserve to be the word of the year, despite it holding a large cultural significance. It has impacted many people, but putting a spotlight on it portrays it as a good thing. If the world of the year was solely based on cultural impact, then “ragebait” would be a perfect choice, but under the rule “ragebait” itself abides by–all press is good press–a phrase with a positive cultural impact should have been chosen.
Being chosen as the word of the year will likely not make much of a difference in whether or not people choose to “ragebait.” However, better, more positive words or phrases should have been chosen or at least considered. Though it may have not been the intention, naming “ragebait” the word of the year is putting the term on a pedestal, and the action along with it.
