When using Facebook there are often items which come up which link to a video of some sort and normally the comment to try to tempt you to look uses the word 'shocked', 'You will be shocked...', 'What happened next will shock you...' etc. None of the videos are what I would think of as being shocking, shocking to me is more like horrifying, something horrid, whereas the videos might be a little surprising but not shocking to me.

I think that the videos are American so is it a case of our different usage of a word?

I think by using 'shocking' the publisher wants to entice the reader, Sue.
I don't know that the word meaning differs so much, more that people will often lean towards a shocking or sensational event, given big enough 'headline'.

I was also pretty sure that most of these items were 'click-bait' - and every look helped generate income.

No, it's not a different usage of the words. It's an attempt to sensationalize something mundane.

It's akin to the use of every performer being a superstar.

In other cases, I'd agree with you, MJ. But in this case I think MarchHare has it - they're not trying to sensationalize, they are just trying to get you to click. It's a subtle difference but a real one, I think.

I've noticed that it is always number seven which will "amaze" me - and of course number seven is no more amazing than any of the others, which is very little amazing. They're not above flat out lying, either - I was tempted into one "Fifteen Celebrities who are now ugly" because the photo was of someone I recognized next to a dreadful harridan with no teeth and I thought "No, really? She looks like that now?" and then of course she wasn't even on the list.

Another new attempt to get us to click is text that says thinks like "tearful fans say goodbye to Sally Field." and "Cher fans in mourning." or "Farewell, Judi Dench. We will miss you." I admit it, I clicked on one of those. I figured I didn't hear the news that someone had died earlier in the day. Nope. It was for some wrinkle cream. Why the various actresses fans are in mourning was never explained.

And in today's world, some of the postings are recruitment constructions to take advantage of people who may be on the edge in deciding to be against 'The Man', the West or infidels. One of the 'shocking' images I've seen twice recently shared by friends is one Satguru and I started a message thread here in the forums. It is the 'shocking' image of snow on the pyramids, claiming this hasn't happened in over a century. The image is actually from 2013 at least. Those who fear Armageddon is around the corner may be taken in by this image and so it keeps getting posted as a new image.
Be careful of the paths you travel on faceBook. Some are fun and entertaining. Others turn out to be dark alleys populated with nary an innocent soul about.

None of what I wrote about is on Facebook. Therre are other websites with "this may interest you" type listings.

The best part about click-bait is how much effort and creativity people put into finding ways to trick you in reading it. Larger tabloid-type sites will often say "17 shocking family photos" or whatever -- and then make you click the next button for each photo for that reason. Publishers expect you to have a following of so many people or so many clicks per month, and that's one of the ways they rack those up. I ignore every article that I see in an ad for that reason.

MiraJane, why the insertion of a complaint against my post (for that is how it reads)? The thread, begun by Sue, refers to faceBook.

I did not complain to you or anyone. I stated nothing I wrote about wasn't from Facebook. Would you like me to reword it to "What I wrote about happens on websites other than Facebook so be careful with every shocking link no matter where you see it." is that better? Or are you again taking a generalized comment, addressed to no one, and going to assume that it is specifically aimed at you?

Please don't let this thread deteriorate into something less than pleasant.

What I was really asking is if the word 'shock' is used differently in the US. To me a video clip of something which is shocking would be horrifying rather than entertaining. Shocking to me means distressing.

Shock here means mostly "extreme surprise" with a slight negative connotation. We are more likely to say we are shocked by something bad than something good, but it's not impossible to hear it used by, oh, a lottery winner. Or for any other big, unexpected news....someone offers to pay twice what you had been thinking of asking for your house you are selling, say.

Yes, that is about the same as here so nothing at all shocking about these Facebook items "You will be shocked at what happens next..." and it turns out to be a cat hogging a dogs bed.

Interestingly enough, I've seen those "Tearful fans say goodbye to ..." many times on Facebook. The first one I saw was about Judi Dench, and I'm embarrassed to say I fell for it, and thought she'd died. Click bait is definitely the right term to describe those sneaky tactics.

One of the many reasons to avoid Facebook at all costs which I do.What I detest most of all are liars and cheats.

The only good thing about it is the "fool me once, etc." principle. They have to continually get new people to click, or they'll eventually have to come up with something new.

"Shocking/shocked/shock".......another of the media's currently favorite "buzz words", together with "amazing", or "sensational", etc.

Personally I have been on this earth a little over 74 years, and am unlikely to be "shocked" by much at all! I suppose winning umpteen millions on the lottery, might qualify though!

Mind you, I am beginning to think that "shock" might also cover a day when the Meteorological Office does not issue a "severe weather warning", or a day when it doesn't rain in UK!

I am shocked! You forgot my two pet hates.. 'absolutely' and 'massive'.

Remember the days when news headlines would have as much information about the story as possible? In the same kind of vein as the non shocking stories here it seems they just want you to click through so they'll be as vague as possible. "South African cricketer in fixing scandal" ... you find out it's a bloke that played all of two games years ago. I rarely click on anything because of it all. :p

To the original intent of the post .. I think we use shocking the same way, Sue. They just try to use the most sensational word they can.

There isn't the same impact if a video is said to be a little disturbing. It has to be described as 'shocking' to grab the attention. It's like things that might be found a bit upsetting being described as 'disgusting' or 'absolutely disgusting'.

It's akin to the journalism quip: "If it bleeds, it leads."