Mine is possibly an unpopular opinion but to me it's seemed that a person's view of whether something is clickbait can often depend a lot on what they think of the topic generally. There's lots of crap posted in r/nz but, imho, it's often more in the discussions in r/nz than in the articles being linked to which could be legit and comparatively reasonable for publication in media.

I think social media doesn't necessarily help itself, either. Sometimes stories can make a lot of sense in the context that a newspaper or website editor has originally published them. Maybe it's printed nearby other related articles that explore different angles or add more context, or as part of a series of alternative opinions intended to give readers multiple perspectives, or buried in a section that in that publication's context would normally only be explored by people looking for very specific stuff rather than on a front page.

If you choose only to get your media with intermittent deep links served up by a social media portal, though, then not only is that context often lost, but we also often prioritise just reading a discrete and isolated headline before being directed into a stream of comments telling us what to think about something we've not even read.