The ethics of clickbait without content

A page carrying only a generic “Proceed” link does more than provide poor labelling. It withholds the information needed for an informed decision. The visitor cannot tell whether the destination is an article, registration page, advertiser, subscription offer or warning. Redirecting is ordinary on the web; disguising that movement as the entire experience is not.

Clickbait ordinarily contains a lure: a headline, image or teasing claim that gives the destination some shape. Without content, even that element has gone. Australian readers often meet such links while scrolling social feeds during a Sydney or Melbourne commute, opening messages in family and work group chats, or tapping sponsored posts beside national and local news. Speed makes vague prompts easy to accept and costly to question.

The language of trust varies, but its absence is obvious. When someone in Australia says “fair dinkum”, they may register surprise or doubt; “no worries” can make an unclear promise sound friendly. Neither phrase is a substitute for disclosure. A gateway that says only to continue asks for attention, trust and possibly data while revealing almost nothing in return.

This matters in an Australian market where publishers depend on advertising, subscriptions and affiliate activity, while platforms mediate most audience relationships. A generic bridge weakens the exchange on which that ecosystem depends: people supply attention and data, yet receive no meaningful account of the service being purchased. Outside metropolitan centres, mobile-first use makes clarity more important, not less.

The missing promise behind the redirect

Links legitimately help people move between pages, accounts, payment systems and publications. A one-line gateway can serve a real function, but only if its wording gives enough context. When the sole action sends people to another external domain, the page has not disclosed who operates it, why the visit matters or what kind of content awaits them.

The missing information is not cosmetic. A destination may request personal details, begin a purchase, open a large file, change language or lead to material that needs contextual warning. The single word “Proceed” implies mere continuation, even when the click crosses domains and business models. The user is asked to move first and understand later, reversing the sequence needed for meaningful consent.

Opacity also has technical consequences. A screen reader may announce only “link” or “click here”, giving a non-visual user no better choice than a sighted user. The destination may log an IP address, device type, timestamp and referring page, then place cookies under its own policy. A redirect can also transmit referrer information, depending on browser settings and site practice. None of this is inherently wrong; concealed collection and surprise redirection are.

Attention as borrowed trust

Attention is often treated as inventory, and click-through rate is used as a convenient measure of success. That creates pressure to make every destination feel urgent or important. This is clickbait without content: attention is solicited through an unexplained command rather than a preview of value. Its curiosity gap is engineered because the site controls the answer while withholding it.

That concern sharpens when a gateway uses the language of investigation, as this link-clicking analysis does, while the gateway itself explains neither its destination nor its purpose. Research may measure how readily people act on a cue, yet a high click rate does not prove understanding, satisfaction or consent. It can just as easily register confusion, reflexive tapping or a habit of closing every advertisement.

Repeated encounters train people to expect disappointment. Each unexplained jump adds a small amount of uncertainty to the next one, including links from reputable organisations. News is especially sensitive because false certainty can influence public understanding, health choices and political participation. Ethical publishers therefore have to account for the social setting of a click, not merely whether a person reached the next page.

What Australian consumers expect

Clear treatment becomes more important in Australia’s mixed media and advertising market, where national mastheads, the ABC, Guardian Australia, state-based outlets, commercial broadcasters and independent publishers compete for attention. A bare gateway can damage confidence across that shared environment. It may also create invalid traffic when automated systems trigger advertising or affiliate links, transferring losses from advertisers to publishers and legitimate audiences.

A page offering a specific account of a domain’s strange history at least signals an editorial subject before the click. Readers can judge whether that subject deserves their time. By contrast, a generic transition removes the preview that makes editorial browsing possible. It forces every visitor through the same blind action, whether they seek public-interest information or commercial material.

Legal duties reinforce, but do not replace, that clarity. Under Australian Consumer Law, misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce can be unlawful, and the ACCC can enforce it. The Spam Act 2003 can also apply when a commercial electronic message relies on consent that was not validly obtained, although the precise facts must be assessed. For a reader in Wagga Wagga, Darwin or Cairns using a phone during the day, an unexplained hop may consume data or cross domains unexpectedly. Straight language is practical inclusion as well as responsible communication.

A practical test for responsible redirects

A responsible gateway can be tested at two moments. The first concerns whether the visitor has enough information to make a decision before leaving the page. Before departure, ask whether it:

• Names the organisation or publisher behind the link.
• States what the destination contains and why it is relevant.
• Shows the destination domain or uses descriptive, matching link text.
• Distinguishes advertising, subscriptions and required account actions.

The second test follows the visitor across the transition. Disclosure should survive the journey, and the destination should behave as the referring page led a reasonable person to expect. On arrival, check whether it:

• Matches the description provided before the click.
• Explains charges, downloads, data requests or new accounts.
• Provides a clear route back to the referring site when useful.
• Avoids pop-ups, fake timers and manufactured urgency.

Neither test cures every defect, but together they expose many dark patterns. Screen-reader labels, visible domains and matching page language matter as much as visual design. Even a recognisable destination such as the Siamese Lipstick homepage does not repair a deliberately vague bridge. Identity cannot compensate for a dishonest beginning.

Designing honesty before the click

Good link design starts with language that names the destination and its purpose. “Read the consumer survey” is more useful than “Continue” when that is what happens next. Publishers should choose link text that remains accurate if the wording appears away from its surrounding sentence, and they should review it whenever the destination changes. This protects context, search results and people using assistive technology.

Honesty also means removing unnecessary obstacles. A direct route is preferable to a chain of gateways; sponsored and affiliate relationships should be disclosed; a warning should appear before a download, account or payment request. Fake countdowns, moving buttons and pressure messages manufactured through repeated resets exploit attention rather than communicate urgency. Trusted publishers gain durable value by making the next step understandable even for visitors who arrive from an unfamiliar referral.

Governance turns that principle into practice. Sites can test gateways with Australian readers in metropolitan and regional areas, with mobile connections and with screen readers, while examining complaints, mistaken clicks and destination quality alongside click-through rates. Ownership should be clear enough for correction when a link misleads. The ethical standard is demanding but direct: the person deciding to follow a link should know, in ordinary language, where it goes and what the publisher expects in return.