Look at God. Comparing this title to the other article's and my annotation from it, you'd think Chad Wellmon was reading. The difference in these titles is that one is actually being rhetorically exciting, while the other was, in my opinion, clickbait.

Didn't read the article before making this annotation, but this type of "clickbait" whether or not this is for or against Google should stop. It's not literary playfulness, nor exciting rhetoric. It's plain stupid and annoying to title things just to get people to read it. If what you have to say is profound or worth the time, you will get your viewers. You can do this without stupid titles...

Can it also rest in the opinions themselves? Meaning can the forming of opinions count as learning and knowledge? Or must one learn and obtain knowledge only from opinions that differ from their own?

From Twitter, to Instagram, to Soundcloud, to Vimeo this is extremely evident. Look at the connection between what is said in the article and the links provided. Twitter is full of rich text, images, sounds and motion pictures. It is a sort of melting pot of it all. Instagram as well. The singular options include Soundcloud for sound (of course) and Vimeo for "...moving pictures."