The Clickbait Chain Reaction
Here’s how the internet’s modern misinformation machine works:
A research paper appears on arXiv (basically the YouTube of science - lots of good ideas, not a lot of editing).
A headline writer spots the words asteroid and nuke and goes, “Print it!”
News sites slap on a photo of missiles and a glowing moon.
TikTokers see that headline, misread it, and post videos titled “NASA ABOUT TO NUKE THE MOON 💀💀💀.”
The public panics for about three hours, until something else starts trending.
And that’s it. That’s how fake panic is born.
If you actually read the article - which, statistically, you didn’t - you’d find that the “nuke” idea is buried halfway down the page, clearly listed as one of several hypothetical scenarios. The rest of the paper talks about deflection, redirection, and orbital adjustment - all the boring stuff that doesn’t make for good headlines.
Because “Scientists discuss asteroid mitigation strategies” doesn’t exactly get clicks while “Nuke the Moon” almost guarantees insane traffic.
The Sad State of “Serious” Media
There was a time when serious media didn’t have to compete with TikTok conspiracy accounts for attention. Now they do. And the algorithm rewards panic, outrage, and anything that sounds like the end of the world.
So even the most respected outlets are forced to play the same game as YouTubers with shocked faces in their thumbnails. The result is a never-ending loop of fear-bait headlines that melt down into nothing once you read past the first paragraph.
This isn’t bad journalism so much as a broken system. Outrage equals engagement. Engagement equals ad revenue. And the truth - calm, nuanced, science-based truth - doesn’t pay as well as “Oh God, Oh God We're all Gonna Die!!!”
A Slow Erosion of the Truth
The real problem isn’t that people think the Moon’s in danger. It’s that every time we let clickbait distort real science, we erode trust in the people actually doing the work. Scientists trying to plan for long-term planetary defense aren’t doomsday preppers; they’re the reason you’ll never need to worry about a real “city killer” asteroid sneaking up on us.
But the more sensationalized the coverage gets, the more audiences tune out entirely. We turn science into spectacle, then wonder why nobody believes experts anymore.
The irony? The whole point of that asteroid paper was to reduce fear - to show that even in the unlikely event of a collision, we already have ideas for how to handle it. Instead, it just gave headline writers a reason to make you think we’re about to launch nukes at space rocks.
Read the Article. Please.
Here’s a rule of thumb for 2025: if the headline sounds insane, it probably is.
Before you panic-tweet about NASA firing missiles at the Moon, actually read the story. Or, if that’s too much work, at least skim it until you find the words “according to a study.” Because nine times out of ten, the actual study is calm, boring, and full of math - not explosions.
We used to say “don’t believe everything you read on the internet.” Now we need to add: “especially if the title has an exclamation mark.”
So no, we’re not nuking the Moon. Not this year, not next, and definitely not because People Magazine told you so. The only thing being obliterated here is context - sacrificed to the almighty algorithm.
