New Oxford Word of the Year Captures Global Anger

George Bernard Shaw once remarked, “Britain and America are two countries separated by the same language.” Yet, it seems the divide has shrunk, united by a shared sense of anger. This week, Oxford University Press revealed its Word of the Year, which resonates profoundly with current sentiment—“rage-bait.”

First seen back in 2002, “rage-bait” refers to “online content intentionally created to provoke anger through irritation or offense, often aimed at driving traffic and engagement on social media.” It’s a fitting term, really, as it aligns closely with thoughts I’ve shared in my recent book on the intricate relationship between free speech and rising anger in our society.

Anger—what a complex emotion. It can feel liberating, offering an outlet for things we might usually keep bottled up. But, it’s precisely because of this release that anger can become, well, addictive. Yet, there’s a flip side: this outrage can empower control.

What’s striking about anger is its subjectivity. You might find a statement fair if you agree with it, but it can feel threatening if you don’t. This was echoed in comments made during the announcement by Casper Grasswohl, president of Oxford Languages, who tied the new term to manipulative online tactics. He pointed to how “internet culture” often influences our emotions in unprecedented ways.

Grasswohl cautioned that this behavior extends to what’s labeled “rage farming,” which refers to the deliberate insertion of incendiary content—often misinformation or conspiratorial narratives—designed to stoke anger and increase engagement gradually.

In the backdrop of this discussion, I can’t help but hear the groans of British censors. The UK, along with many European nations, has historically diluted free speech, particularly online. The internet, which many celebrate as the greatest achievement since the printing press, is seen as a risk by those who aim to control discourse.

Interestingly, algorithms meant to amplify certain posts are now in the crosshairs. Meanwhile, figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren have criticized these social media platforms for allegedly fueling division by allowing what they deem to be misinformation to flourish. It’s as if there’s a push to regulate the very fabric of discourse in an attempt to create more favorable narratives.

But there’s a nuance here. Distinguishing between biased content in algorithms and systems that simply elevate popular posts becomes tricky. If social media merely reflects public interest, then is the problem really the “rage-bait,” or rather, the audience’s appetite for it?

Ultimately, these platforms thrive on traffic, often promoting content that resonates with users. This distracts activists, who may feel their voices aren’t resonating, believing their viewpoints are healthier for public debate.

Yet the idea of enacting “enlightened algorithms” to prioritize truth—determined by governments—is fraught with complications. Perhaps it’s not so much about a “hijack” but rather a liberation of dialogue, moving beyond anger-fueled discussions.

As Oxford made its choice this week, another report emerged highlighting the erosion of free speech in the UK, with alarming stories of individuals facing repercussions for their online expressions. One individual was apprehended over a photograph involving a firearm, emphasizing a troubling trend of overreach in speech regulation.

In fact, police statistics indicate around 12,000 people are arrested annually in the UK for online remarks. This points to a broader issue; while rhetoric of anger has existed throughout human history, the danger isn’t necessarily in the anger itself but in how governments use it to suppress voices.

It’s interesting how both sides of the political spectrum perceive anger: one side might see certain expressions as incendiary while overlooking similar rhetoric from their own. Moreover, individuals often curate their information sources, leading to echo chambers that feed their views.

What Oxford has spotlighted is significant. Though the choice of “rage-bait” encapsulates the current era, it simultaneously shines a light on how anger is wielded to justify censorship, often masquerading as rational governance.