If you have a thesis statement, it should probably be your first sentence – this is the recommendation of the inverted pyramid model in journalism – but a confusing title ought to prevent people who didn't even bother to show up from clouding the discussion.

Of course, the inverted pyramid model is constructed to use people's time as best as possible, and suffers no delusions about how people consume news (and have consumed news for over a century). But maximal efficiency might not be socially ideal.

It allows people who read only the headline to jump in and respond to just that, and I'm not sure that's good for either them or their conversation partners. Wouldn't it be better if the short bit that facebook and twitter show didn't prompt any strong reaction at all? That way, only readers will discuss it.

Of course, "no meaningful reaction" is non-optimal headline copy. But if it describes the subject, without revealing information or opinion, that might let people guess if they're interested relatively accurately. Do they actually want to know about it, or would they have to be tempted with a clickbait style tease? Being vague certainly doesn't trick you, if the vagueness is apparent.

And while not everything is worth the time, we ought to only spend emotions on topics we're willing to spend at least a couple minutes reading about. Helping people become a more thorough reader is an under-rewarded social good – it helps people's first opinions be more detailed, which helps even when you're wrong. So maybe making your thing strange instead of appealing or even comprehensible is the best way to handle 21st century media?

It's a balancing of concerns, between efficiency and slightly better conversation. But I think it's okay to make people read a sentence past the headline, if that's all it takes to filter out the most lazy of social media scrollers.