Stay In This World
The stories, the culture, the conversations. Every week.
No spam. No third parties. Just Unruly.
On rage bait, the monetization of attention, and what cultural relevance actually costs to build.
There is a particular kind of post that Nigerian Twitter has become very familiar with. It arrives without warning, usually in the late morning or early afternoon when the timeline is active. It says something designed to be wrong in a specific and irritating way, or makes a claim about gender, relationships, or culture that is calibrated to produce maximum disagreement. Within minutes the replies are flooding in. By evening it has thousands of engagements. The person who posted it has said nothing of substance, contributed nothing to any conversation worth having, and has almost certainly made money from the interaction.
This is not accidental. It is a business model.
When X, formerly Twitter, introduced its creator revenue sharing program, it changed something fundamental about how the platform operates. Under the current structure, creators earn a share of ad revenue based on engagement from Premium users on their posts. The requirement to qualify includes generating at least five million organic impressions within a ninety day period. The practical consequence of this design is straightforward: the platform pays for volume, and outrage generates volume faster and more reliably than almost anything else.
X's own internal discussions acknowledged this. One executive noted that the platform had been incentivizing the same kinds of posts for too long, and that a user's very first timeline experience was likely to include rage bait and divisive content. The monetization structure had, in effect, created a financial reward for provocation. Thousands of engagement-baiting profiles emerged, and the average quality of content on the platform declined accordingly.
Nigerian Twitter did not invent this dynamic. But it absorbed it quickly, and the local context gave it specific flavors. A platform that was already fast, opinionated, and culturally influential became, in some corners, a place where the performance of strong feeling replaced the expression of actual thought. The posts that circulate furthest are often not the most considered. They are the most combustible.
The idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity has been around long enough to feel like received wisdom. The logic is intuitive: any attention is better than no attention, being talked about keeps you relevant, controversy generates visibility that money cannot buy. In certain contexts and at certain scales, it contains a grain of truth. A brand that generates outrage at least confirms it exists. A public figure who provokes conversation at least confirms they are present.
But the distinction the idea collapses is the one that matters most. Being talked about and being respected are not the same thing. Generating impressions and building cultural authority are not the same thing. Notoriety and relevance are not interchangeable, and the confusion of one for the other is one of the more costly mistakes a person or a brand can make in public.
Notoriety is easy to manufacture and has a short half-life. It peaks at the moment of maximum outrage and then decays, because the next provocation is always arriving. The timeline has no memory and no loyalty. Someone who built their presence entirely on controversy finds themselves needing to escalate continuously to maintain the same level of attention, and escalation has diminishing returns. The audience that came for the spectacle leaves when the spectacle becomes predictable.
Cultural relevance is built differently. It accumulates slowly through consistency, through a point of view that people return to because it says something true about the world they are living in, through work that rewards the people who pay attention to it. It does not spike and decay. It compounds.
Nigerian Twitter has produced genuine cultural voices: people whose observations about Lagos life, about music, about fashion, about how this city actually works, have built real and sustained audiences over years. Those voices are not the loudest ones on any given day. They are rarely the ones in the middle of the afternoon controversy. But they are the ones people go back to, the ones whose takes people save and share weeks after the original post, the ones whose presence on the platform feels like something other than noise.
The contrast with the rage bait economy is instructive. Consider the scenario of a content creator who builds an audience of hundreds of thousands through a consistent stream of provocative relationship takes, the kind calibrated to make one half of the timeline furious and the other half performatively agreeable. The numbers are real. The engagement is real. The monetization is real. But when that creator attempts to leverage the audience into something more, a brand partnership, a cultural project, a business, they often discover that the audience they built does not transfer. It was never really theirs. It was borrowed from the algorithm.
Compare that to the scenario of a creator whose audience is smaller but whose readers treat their recommendations as trustworthy, whose observations get quoted in conversations the creator was not part of, whose presence in a cultural moment is cited rather than simply witnessed. That is cultural relevance. It does not always pay immediately, and it does not generate the same kind of daily traffic. But it builds something that survives the next controversy cycle.
There is a cultural cost to the rage bait economy that sits beyond any individual creator's choices. When the most visible conversations on a platform are the most combustible ones, the platform's capacity to host genuine cultural discourse declines. The signal-to-noise ratio shifts. People who have things worth saying either leave, go quiet, or adapt their communication to the incentive structure in ways that compromise what made their voice worth listening to in the first place.
Nigerian Twitter has been one of the most culturally generative spaces on the African internet. It has broken artists, shaped trends, held institutions accountable, and produced a kind of real-time cultural criticism that nothing else quite replicates. That capacity is not guaranteed. It depends on a critical mass of people treating the platform as a space where ideas matter, where a well-made observation earns more than a provocative one, where the goal is to say something rather than simply to be heard saying something.
The monetization of attention did not create the temptation to provoke. But it did formalize the reward. And when provocation pays, the people who resist it are operating at a structural disadvantage that requires a deliberate choice to accept.
Cultural relevance has always cost something. The question the current moment is asking is whether enough people still think it is worth paying for.
