While we're on the topic, is it just me or has memetic engineering kicked it up a notch lately with Upworthy, ViralNova, etc? Or was it always like this?
And Upworthy content is political propaganda (it's a spinoff project from the moveon.org folks, and its services are marketed as a tool to manipulate viewers' political viewpoints, not just sell stuff or generic ad impressions), not just humorous clickbait; that adds an extra layer of manipulative slime to the headlines.
You call it "manipulative slime," but I'm still undecided on the morality of it. On the one hand, the manipulative aspect is incredibly annoying, and I avoid clicking on Upworthy links basically out of spite. On the other hand, is this worse or better than using viral marketing tactics to sell a product? What if Upworthy manages to get hundreds of thousands of people to share an informative video on a civil rights issue that you find to be of pressing importance?
Viewed through this lens, Upworthy is essentially analogous to viral vector gene therapy for the hivemind. Is this inherently evil? Do the ends justify the means? I don't know, but it would be an interesting discussion to have.
'Manipulative slime' is pretty spot-on. Upworthy tries to change political viewpoints but it doesn't do it in most cases by presenting facts, by challenging assumptions, or by trying to elevate the level of discourse. Instead, it's all low-quality viral content, reshares, and stuff explicitly intended to induce warm fuzzies within its viewers first and foremost. From the linked article:
"One Upworthy post carried the headline “Watch A Preacher Attack Gay Marriage And Totally Change His Mind On The Spot” without mentioning that the entire speech was a hoax by the pro-gay rights preacher, who was making fun of the other viewpoint."