You know the computer nerd who gets his knickers (from Fry’s underwear section) in a twist over some action movie where someone hacks into a computer in a way that’s just not possible? While failing to grasp that it’s only a fucking movie?
Well, if you happened to say anything along the lines of “while I usually love the Daily Show’s take on pop culture, I think they missed the mark a bit with their Twitter piece” you have become that computer nerd.
I asked @Robcorddry to comment on this story about his vasectomy, and the man clearly has too much time on his hands (and the kind of discomfort that would make masturbation not-an-option in that kind of situation). He got back to us. So it’s confirmed! Someone who may or may not be the real Rob Corddry has or has not had a vasectomy that he Twittered about for a bit, a while ago. It’s this kind of reporting that’s putting the New York Times out of business. Cheers, Rob. Sorry, trained journalists. This is the new, fact-check-free world we live in. Suck on it. “It” being Rob’s snipped sack.
In a move widely applauded by social media pundits, Skittles embraced internet comment culture at its finest yesterday by redirecting their homepage to a feed of vulgar tweets #tagged #skittles, thus allowing small children who visit the web pages of candy-brands (if such virtual moppets exist) to see words like cunt, ant–Scientology screeds and the like, as tweeted by people like, um, me. Not so much kids in an electronic candy store as tiny target consumers/collateral damage in the cross-hairs of a small army of potty-mouthed ad-busters.
Of course said social media pundits have weighed in with lists of ways in which brands could avoid the kind of smut-bombing which were, let’s be honest, the only thing that made Shittles 2.0 a briefly diverting amusement for about 30 seconds yesterday. To which I say, fuck that.
Rob Corddry, from back when the Daily Show was all white dudes, has had a vasectomy. Or someone pretending to be him has. Or maybe he (either he) hasn’t, but they’re tweeting about it anyway (new stupid Twitter twend - pretend to be a celebrity then attribute small but memorable medical procedures to them).
I’d love to think that this is some sort of ironic comment by Corddry on celebrity micro-oversharing, but it is entirely possible that it’s basically true. I’ll ping him (or “him”) for a comment and get back to you on that. You can follow him @RobCorddry
Russell Brand nailed it (and a lot of other things along the way, as recounted in his much-missed BBC podcast - bittorrent it - and his Booky Wook). Twittering is, in the grand scheme of goal-displacement activities - the new repetative-wrist-injury risk. There are a lot of comedians on the Twitter at this point (and we’ll get to some of them shortly) but as for Twit-wit, there’s a bit too much tour-date tweeting and not enough compact comedy. Will Russell, with his well-documented love of language raise the bar or limbo dance under it? You can follow him @rustyrockets.
If anyone can turn Twitter-type activities into an actual business it’s a) soul-destroyingly trite social-media marketing consultants with lists of ten ways to skull-fuck your contacts into carbon-based asset-forms by staying “on message” regarding your “personal brand” in what L. Ron Hubbard might recognize as “value-add peer-based convi-linguistic programming opportunities soaked in fully-fermented recommendation juice.” Or b) the people who turned LOLcats into the Icanhascheezburger empire. Fingers crossed on option b then, eh?
140pedia is exactly what the name suggests it is. Either a) a wiki of pot related tomfoolery after the Standard and Poor pot index dropped 280 points or b) a series of wikipedia-style definitions of things, boiled down to a Twitter-style 140 character count, with Cheezburger-style voting up n’ down. It’s not quite there yet - how about a list of words in need of 140-fication? - and there’s no character counter, fer christ’s sake, though I hear it’s coming. Still, if a thin slice of the smart-arses who make the LOL-comments so much fun show up, it could well turn into a competative arena for the sharpest 140-character show-offs. If you can’t be arsed checking the site out just yet you can follow it @140pedia. (UPDATED: They added a character counter).
Speaking of @Watchwithcomics (as we were two whole posts ago), Kevin Pollack (the Usual Suspects, some TV shows about poker, a better-yet-more-predictable Christopher Walken impression than yours) went on the YouTube to post a vlog about his experiences live-tweeting the Oscars, amongst other things.
First the Pope, then the Dali Lama, and now this! Startng a YouTube channel that is. To the best of my knowledge the Pope did not live-tweet the Oscars. Except perhaps to say that Kate Winslet’s illiterate nazi character was fine by him as long as she didn’t have any illiterate nazi abortions. And I’m guessing he didn’t. I presume he has cardinals who do that for him.
GeekEntertainmentTV’s roving Siberian reporter Irina Slutsky asks a bunch of hip people and/or media wankers to recollect their first fumbling attempts at micro-oversharing. It’s like when JFK shot John Lennon with a guitar made out of bullets, you never forget where you were and who you were doing.
If only I’d started this blog a week earlier I could have told hypothetical (non-existant) readers about @Watchwithcomics, a Twitter account rapidly re-tweeting the best in short-form snark from 35 twittering comedians during the Academy Awards. As a first-attempt at tapping into the comedic hive-mind it was a pretty solid success, with comics like @DougBenson and websites like @videogum throwing compact verbal stinkbombs in the general direction of the Kodak theater.
Given that a few of the Watchwith posse comics had mostly posted “If you’re in Cincinatti, come see me at the Chucklehut” type tweets in the past, this concept can only get better as more comedians find better ways to waste 140 characters. In addition to the @Watchwithcomics account, there’s a website too.
I asked 
If only I’d started this blog a week earlier I could have told hypothetical (non-existant) readers about @