19 Screenshots that Reveal the Hollowness of Business Insider and Modern Culture in General

Dilbert IS business, basically. Laugh and care about it to advance your career!

In an era of clickbait nonsense aggregation bullshit, online content in general is in danger of becoming a lobotomized, numbers-driven, shortform mess. When I state with confidence that using the internet can make a person extremely dumb, paranoid, hateful, angry, etc... I am speaking mostly about the content aggregator sites, although mainstream media websites and the 'respected' online only publications are also wracked with issues like poor editorial standards and their habit of mixing serious stories with internet culture fluff. The end result is an uncritical and uninformed mass of people with simplistic world-views and ideas who are around you, and vote and have jobs and discuss whatever malformed ideas they have with like-minded people and shout at those who disagree with them.

I started reading Business Insider earlier this year. I don't know why, I suppose I wanted a wider selection of sites and I'd never really frequented an aggregator before. I figured it would be helpful in determining what wider news trends were... but I was wrong, because Business Insider isn't a news site. It's an aggregator with a 'business' lifestyle slant, which means it will present you with the idols of the cult of success, the accouterments of the cult of success, and Forbes-like fawning and panic about wealth with a subset of stories about actual business some of which may have been bought and paid for by the businesses prominent in that story. Looking at you Shake Shack, Soul Cycle, whatever the newest 'Chipotle-killer' is, etc...

What kept me reading was that I wanted to see how low they'd go. Some of their clickbait articles are so obvious that the site functions as a sort of case study in the decline of news caused by the massive expansion into the void of the internet. The fact that the site was successful enough to be sold for millions (more millions than I'm comfortable with) is a sign that this kind of operation appeals to someone – even if that someone is just advertising and/or PR agencies or some guy with a cargo-cult mentality who thinks reading the imaginatively titled Business Insider will get him a corner office or board seat.

That's the thing, it's not insider information, it's widely available information with a few home-brewed stories... on the one hand they put money in the hands of the people who write useless internet articles, and as much as I do pity them, they are my kind and it's better that there are still jobs where people who write get jobs (even if they go through six or more years of post-secondary education just to write for Buzzfeed or BI). To me, it doesn't matter if that person cannot spell or use words properly,and doesn't know how to use contractions, doesn't have any real passion for language or writing... they could be the biggest, least ink-stained hack of all time but if they're getting six cents a word while a video producer or hype man is out of work, I'm happy. On the other, less expansive hand, they don't produce any 'good' stuff. They provide a service that generally repeats information for a layman crowd. Longform is dead, et cetera...

It's a website that's good at being a brand, and one of those new kinds of brands launched and owned by people slightly more web-savvy than the people who run newspapers, which even as I type it seems crazy, because everyone uses the internet now. The fact remains that traditional media have not adapted super well, I guess, because there are voids where a shrewd person can set up shop and in a few years be valued at millions of dollars.

But what kind of content... that's the important question, right? What's the kind of content they got? Well, it's an eyeful, and I've been filing away some of the more mordant, absurd, and frivolous examples:

The headlines are a schizoid mix of important news and 'content', which may affect the minds of long term readers.

Interested in the insider 'hack' about hotels that you probably never knew about?

["Oh, word?" -Ed.]

The Interstitial Garbage Dump

Download the album automatically and don't listen to it at all and chuckle at the ensuing media firestorm sinking an irrelevant brand.

Pick a new role for yourself online, let the psychosis of the internet really get to you, really inhabit its odd corners, muttering constantly about incredible things with an awesome potential to alienate others while also alienating you. Get really huffy about something like everyone else is doing!

The newest sensation is a good way to get views and followers. Yet there is a way to do it properly and it may only be to create some bot account twitter, where you are the bot, retweeting an oblivious feed via buzzy logic and reimagining news stories in the naive or Socratic mode.

You ramble about the newest sensation. There is the Rob Ford Saga, pt. 6, and many others. Or work on the themes: What the Hell, vol. 1; Wild Internet XXI; My Fat Twitter Diary; Fail-o-sphere 2.5; LOLNET... the internet possibilities are endless. If you want success, stick to the sensations and try and become as media literate as you can in the broadest sense. Make a vid or two. Don't use memes stupidly and try not to play irrelevant or annoying ones unless you're really good, memewise.

No it doesn't need to make sense. It only needs to make sense interstitially and occasionally. The savvy user reads between the lines anyway.

Whatever happened to Nerd Culture? It got really quiet and samey, growing like a benign tumor on the cultural wasteland of 2014, a cyst overfull of information and inflated by its handlers. The newest game is all design and art, game be damned. The digital grindstone. "Only moonlighting in reality these days."

The dramatic currency wars. Fading economies. The thriving era of Cannibal Orphan Globalism. Violence signalling like flares in the dark that something is still terribly wrong and broken, help is needed, and the constant fear that everything else will get dragged in again leading to some monstrous cataclysm. Orphans of the species make further orbits for a couple of hardscrabble years, looking hungrily at a succession of pure nights.

We have a responsibility to do what we can and not let it get to us, try though it might. Is it our responsibility to look into things, risking mental corrosion and flights of fancy? Who can say? This blogger certainly can't. Casual self-reflection is probably a good habit unless it leads one too far inside. Introspection is only half the story at best. What seems impossible is always categorical: do all questions lead somewhere?

The internet provides a constant potential to feel extremely negative and anxious about everything, a literal bottomless pit that only exists insofar as what exactly? Personalized algorithmic experience, digital rat maze, the netscape, first and last frontier; possibly the end is in sight.

What the wreck of news journalism reveals is a world still running amok. Things are in some ways better, but things are worse at least existentially for all and are really not that great for most in any case. In the best case a global society awakens, ignores its differences, and forces the start of a new era divorced from as many of the ignorant sins of the past as possible. But realistically a continuation and intensification of the recent past is most likely, for at least a few more decades, by which time it may truly be too late.

The net decline of genetic diversity correlates to a net decline in the value of Earth, beyond merely a pruning of the tree of life as some non-alarmists would argue. If people were as carefree about their dollars everyone would be a millionaire, economists would be philosopher kings, and there would be no world hunger. Funny how more or less pure capitalism, either way, could solve a few problems. The law of mediocrity is by definition only fair to a small percentage. If we made it, could it rule us? What does it matter when the toxic cloud is already here, and has been for dozens of years?

The realist perspective is not individualistic, but there will always be the allure of a heroic self-narrative and/or other fantasies. There is not enough realism left, as if the horrors of the 20th century exhausted our ability or willingness to see things as they are. How will we advance beyond being troops of apes? Will we? Is the criticism even valid? We cannot truly say things are purely otherwise yet. The symbolists can prove it.

It is best to ramble about things awhile. Puzzle them over over a beer or so with a friend or friends who are looking to ruin your line of thought by thrusting their own into a collision with it. Whatever, anyways, right? Whatever...

User Comment Rodeo: Lazier and Funnier than Ever!

Hey readers, you're probably quite excited that the UCR hasn't been lost or destroyed in a fire yet, right? Oh, you aren't... well it's back. 2014 has probably been a great year for stupid user comments, but we're going to find out. Okay, well, here's a bunch of great user commentary, bitching, and the occasional gem - dug up in the most unhealthy way possible.

 

Highly potent stuff. Hahahahaha. I can definitely see why the UCR 3000 or whatever picked this up. Great shit. Hahha. Not a waste of twenty thousand dollars.

Ahahaha holy shit somebody got owned [for teh internet savvy browsers: 'pwned'] pretty hard in the comment section that day... goddamn that's some serious incest.

Damn look at this guy who can see through the facade of lowered violent crime rates and other liberal mumbo-jumbo hexapentatonic voodoo to the truth: ancient biblical cities that were destroyed for lawlessness and immorality are essentially the same as the modern United States. Obozo, good shit dude... betcha didn't come up with something that good yourself.

Hell yeah that's got me spinning in the chair, spitting out my tea/coffee/beer, and laughing all the way to the bank!

In twelve years the above user commentary will be cited in a study conclusively proving that video games promote mental illness on a level at least equivalent to marginalization, drug use, or genetics. I don't know what the hell is going on, but people live like that... imagine their internal monologues and all the stupid shit they get excited about... mental illnesses and neurological problems... seriously hilarious shit.

 

Climate science is the lowest target besides almost everything else an unthinking buffoon commentates on. Let's see what might or might not happen (much like we as a species do with earth and climate science).

You see? Hippie shit.

Oh, and highly reasonable responses that lead one to question why the commentator is wasting potential arguing with people in the user comment section. Why not go to school? Or use your time responsibly... maybe these saints have bigger plans than any of us know, and don't mind getting mired in incredibly stupid and wasteful arguments with hardened skeptics. Maybe they don't even get hopeless or angry or wracked by belly laughs when they engage the user comment sections of the internet... and there's a lot of those.

Lolnet.heh/msuic

Recently I overheard people talking about an album by Bon Iver. And I was thinking, to be honest, "Hippy Bon Jovi Nonsense". So I did my due diligence, business people, and the rest of you should know I visited wikipedia, followed up on the name-drops, and laughed at something I found. It's a piece of music journalism. Two pieces, actually. I like to call them the dueling reviews. They inspired me to do some listening many weeks ago.

And all that time those two reviews have stuck in my mind. Sometimes I catch myself thinking about them on the way to work, or while getting groceries, sometimes even in the middle of a conversation some spare remark will prompt the two Bon Iver reviews that Tim Sendra wrote, presumably for Allmusic. These reviews and the three-and-something years between them are, I think, representative of how the human socio-cultural system has shifted. Or maybe I'm a tin-eared bastard with a dumb, sloppy blog.

The two Bon Iver albums strike me as being remarkably similar. I haven't played them constantly; I haven't listened to either of the albums particularly critically (huh?); I have, however, listened to both of the albums in full at least four times. As far as I'm concerned, I have more respect for Bon Iver than for Tim Sendra, but Bon Iver has to admit that Tim Sendra has somehow managed to make Bon Iver weirdly important to me. I wouldn't have known about this band or even written them off if not for two reviews that produced a mysterious reaction in my mind. Tim Sendra, however, has explained where the last three years of my life went, for which I am in his debt - figuratively, of course.

The two albums are titled For Emma and Bon Iver, chronologically. Note how the second album title is eponymous. The fact literally does not matter to me. I somehow always think it's the first album, which may have skewed my idea of things, except that I knew exactly what Tim Sendra was talking about when he reviewed either album. Let me be concise for a moment: I think the first album is sincere and conceited; I think the second is sincere and conceited. I found both of them pretty enjoyable except they have a sombre, cool vibe to them. Let me post an image of Tim Sendra's review of For Emma. I hope he doesn't mind this mild intrusion, but I am acknowledging him as the author and Allmusic as the owner, so there's nothing to apologize about since I'm not planning on calling him uncouth names.

It seems to me an honest review. It's probably how Tim Sendra felt about the album. It's a fair representation and he does not oversell. He notes: 'subdued', 'isolated', 'voice', 'harmonies', and you can read the rest. I find the album decent, etherized and ethereal and with a few stand-out songs. "Lump Sum" is alright. In the end the album is alright. Some of the vocals are autotuned, so there is obvious conceit and if you are not a sensitive soul you will find these touches laughable or out-of-place. They are used for emphasis, don't sound entirely stupid, but still: fucking autotune in another heartfelt, subdued, harmonic indie-rock folkish lament. I don't even know if it's original but it surprised me.

So, cool album. Not something I'd want to listen to very often, but for times of illness or heartbreak I imagine it is suitable if unhealthy. In themselves, For Emma and Sendra's review are harmless enough and inoffensive. Now, gentle reader, please allow me to bring Exhibit B into these calm, idealized waters. Exhibit B is Bon Iver, the album, and Sendra's review as accompaniment in B sharp.