The summer of manufactured outrage

How ‘rage farming’ monetizes anger and what we can do to fight back

After last weekend’s unofficial start to the season, summer has arrived in America. Meanwhile, a familiar pattern emerges in our culture and across our digital landscape. Social media feeds and news outlets ignite with controversy, transforming minor disputes into national crises.

Recall 2020’s “Summer of Love.”

This seasonal surge of indignation is not a spontaneous eruption of public concern—it is the calculated product of what researchers now call “rage farming,” a systematic exploitation of human emotion for profit and political gain.

The anatomy of outrage is disturbingly predictable. A trivial incident, whether a public figure’s offhand remark, a brand’s awkward advertisement, or a viral video, sparks a firestorm of commentary.

Within hours, professional provocateurs and algorithm-driven feeds amplify the story, stripping away nuance and context to maximize emotional engagement. By the time most Americans encounter the controversy, it has already been weaponized, recast as a battle in the never-ending culture war.

Recent studies confirm the mechanics behind this manipulation. Content that provokes anger or ideological opposition receives far more engagement than conciliatory or neutral material. This “confrontation effect” is no accident. Social media platforms, driven by advertising revenue, have every incentive to keep users outraged and glued to their screens.

The more heated the argument, the longer people stay, the more ads they see, and the more data they generate.

Yale researchers have shown that the reward systems built into these platforms—likes, shares, comments—train users to express ever more extreme moral outrage. The result is a feedback loop: outrage begets engagement, which begets more outrage.

Over time, this cycle radicalizes discourse, making moderation and reasoned debate nearly impossible.

The consequences are not limited to online spaces. Companies from retailers to entertainment giants have seen their reputations and stock prices battered by fleeting but intense digital controversies. The outrage industrial complex has real economic costs, diverting resources and attention from innovation and constructive activity to crisis management and damage control.

This perpetual state of outrage is not merely a technological phenomenon. It reflects a deeper cultural malaise. Where previous generations demonstrated resilience and perspective in the face of adversity, today’s digital culture encourages the opposite: hypersensitivity, overreaction, and a lack of proportionality.

Minor slights are inflated into existential threats. Every disagreement is recast as a moral emergency. The language of crisis and catastrophe is applied to the most trivial matters, eroding the ability to distinguish between real challenges and manufactured drama.

Institutions that once fostered community and mutual understanding have been hollowed out or repurposed as battlegrounds in the culture war. Civic organizations, local clubs, and neighborhood associations—once the backbone of American society—have been replaced by online echo chambers and fleeting digital alliances. The result is a population increasingly isolated, anxious, and susceptible to manipulation.

This degradation of public discourse is not accidental. It serves the interests of those who profit from division and distraction. The more Americans are focused on artificial controversies, the less attention is paid to substantive issues and the hard work of building lasting institutions.

The effects of chronic outrage are not just cultural or economic—they are biological. Neuroscientific research shows that repeated exposure to inflammatory content physically alters the brain. The amygdala, the brain’s threat detection center, becomes enlarged, making individuals more reactive and less able to process information calmly.

At the same time, regions of the brain responsible for empathy, rational deliberation, and impulse control begin to atrophy. The result is a population primed for conflict, less capable of compromise, and more likely to view political opponents as enemies rather than fellow citizens.

This neurological rewiring has profound implications for this republic. A society conditioned to react rather than reflect, to seek immediate emotional gratification rather than long-term solutions, cannot sustain the deliberative processes necessary for self-government.

Faced with this landscape, how should we respond?

The temptation is to fight fire with fire—to meet outrage with counter-outrage, to treat every manufactured controversy as a battle that must be won. But this approach only fuels the cycle, playing directly into the hands of those who profit from division.

Instead, the right’s response should be one of principled disengagement and constructive renewal. This means refusing to participate in the outrage economy, declining to be manipulated by those who seek to monetize anger, and focusing instead on building the kinds of relationships and institutions that foster real community and resilience.

The first step is to ask: Cui bono?

By following the money—from advertising revenue to fundraising appeals—it becomes clear that most viral outrages are artificial, designed to serve commercial or political interests rather than the common good.

A practical response? Adopt a 24-hour rule: before reacting to any trending controversy, wait a day. As far as adopting such a tactic, your humble correspondent doesn’t always heed his own words.

Often, the story will fade or be revealed as exaggerated or misleading. So, this small act of discipline can break the cycle of instant outrage and create space for reasoned judgment.

The most effective antidote to manufactured outrage is the restoration of authentic human connection. Outrage thrives in the absence of real relationships. When people know their neighbors, participate in local organizations, and engage in face-to-face conversation, they are less likely to be swept up in digital hysteria.

Mid-20th-century America was characterized by dense networks of civic engagement: church groups, service clubs, sports leagues, and neighborhood associations. These institutions provided a sense of belonging and purpose, anchored individuals in a shared reality, and created bonds of trust that transcended political differences.

Today, these networks have withered, replaced by the ephemeral connections of social media. Rebuilding them will not be easy, but it is essential.

Americans today must prioritize the creation and support of local institutions that foster real community: volunteer organizations, small businesses, the Church, and initiatives focused on learning.

Ancient philosophy offers guidance for navigating a world saturated with outrage. The Stoics taught that true happiness and stability come from focusing on what one can control and accepting what one cannot.

In the digital age, this means choosing not to be consumed by every controversy but instead investing time and energy in pursuits that create lasting value.

Psychological research supports this wisdom. People who develop “grit”—the ability to pursue long-term goals with perseverance—are less susceptible to emotional manipulation and more likely to lead fulfilling lives. The practice of patient craft, whether in the arts, trades, or scholarship, builds the internal stability needed to withstand external chaos.

This approach aligns with the conservative tradition of valuing the “permanent things” or the norms of human nature— charity, justice, freedom, duty, temperance, prudence, fortitude, and so forth. These enduring values provide a foundation for resilience and renewal in the face of cultural turbulence.

The regime of manufactured outrage persists only because people participate in it. By withdrawing consent, refusing to engage, share, or amplify artificial controversies, individuals can undermine its power.

This does not require abandoning technology altogether. Rather, it calls for the cultivation of “technological sovereignty”: the conscious decision to use digital tools on one’s own terms, rather than being used by them. This might mean setting limits on social media use, curating one’s news sources, or prioritizing in-person interactions over online debates.

Supporting artists, writers, and entrepreneurs who celebrate beauty, truth, and excellence—rather than grievance and division—can help shift the cultural conversation. Organizing community projects, mentoring young people, and investing in local institutions all contribute to the slow but steady work of rebuilding a healthy society.

Education is also crucial, but compulsory schooling isn’t what we’re talking about here. Young Americans, raised in a world of constant digital stimulation, need to be taught the difference between real challenges and manufactured drama. History, literature, and the arts provide perspective and context, helping to cultivate the judgment and resilience necessary for responsible citizenship.

Every minute spent consumed by artificial controversy is time not spent on productive activity, personal growth, or community service. The opportunity costs are enormous: relationships neglected, skills left undeveloped, businesses and organizations deprived of creative energy.

The most profound act of resistance is to focus on what truly matters. By investing in family, faith, work, and local community, individuals can create meaning and stability in their own lives, regardless of the turbulence in the broader culture.

As the summer’s cycle of manufactured outrage unfolds, Americans face a choice. They can participate in the degradation of public discourse, or they can model an alternative—one rooted in restraint, perspective, and the active cultivation of the permanent things.

The path forward is clear: reject the outrage economy, rebuild authentic communities, and focus on what is lasting and real.

By doing so, Americans can reclaim their sanity, restore their institutions, and lay the groundwork for a more stable and flourishing society.