SHOCKING: This Entrepreneur Made Millions By Getting People Addicted to Phones, Then Charging Them to Quit – The Digital Drug Dealer Business Model

By

-

April 5, 2025

“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing you to download his app.” – Ancient tech proverb, probably!

In a world where 43.2% of Americans openly admit they’re addicted to their smartphones and the average person checks their device 205 times daily, one entrepreneur has discovered the perfect business model: create the disease, then sell the cure¹.

Meet Aidan Maxwell, founder and CEO of PhoneFix Solutions, the fastest-growing tech conglomerate you’ve never heard of—until now. His business strategy? A revolutionary two-phase approach that first hooks users on their devices through addictive apps, then offers them expensive solutions to break free from the very addiction his company created.

The Perfect Business Model: Digital Drug Dealing

“I had my eureka moment while watching my nephew play Candy Crush for six straight hours,” Maxwell explains from his minimalist office in Silicon Valley, where not a single screen is visible. “I realized there’s more money in rehabilitation than in addiction. Drug dealers only profit once. Rehab centers get recurring revenue.”

Maxwell’s business empire operates through two seemingly separate companies. Phase one: AttenTech, which designs hyper-engaging apps specifically engineered to trigger dopamine releases at precisely timed intervals. Phase two: DigitalDetox, which offers expensive solutions to break those exact addictive patterns.

The business model is brilliant in its simplicity. First, get people hopelessly addicted to their phones through free or low-cost apps. Then, once they’re desperate to reclaim their lives, charge them premium prices for the cure.

“We’ve essentially reverse-engineered the tobacco industry’s business model for the digital age,” explains Dr. Eliza Chen, PhoneFix’s Chief Addiction Engineer. “But unlike cigarettes, which take decades to kill you, our products can destroy your attention span, relationships, and mental health within months. And then—here’s the beautiful part—we step in to save you from yourself.”

The Science of Digital Addiction

The company’s flagship addiction product, an innocent-looking social media app called “Momentz,” appears harmless at first glance. But beneath its sleek interface lies a sophisticated algorithm designed by 1000’s of former gambling industry psychologists.

“We’ve incorporated over 38 psychological triggers into the basic scrolling mechanism,” explains Chen. “Each time you pull down to refresh, there’s a variable reward schedule at play—the same mechanism that makes slot machines so addictive. Will you see something exciting or nothing at all? That uncertainty keeps users pulling the lever again and again.”

The results speak for themselves. Internal data shows that Momentz users check their phones an average of 312 times daily—significantly higher than the national average of 205 checks. Over 76% of users report opening the app within five minutes of waking up, and 83% say they’ve used it while driving, despite knowing the dangers.

“We track everything,” says Maxwell. “Eye movement patterns, millisecond hesitations, emotional responses to content. We know precisely when dopamine levels drop and exactly how to boost them again. It’s basically digital cocaine.”

Phase Two: Selling the Cure

Once users reach peak addiction levels—a state PhoneFix internally calls “Digital Dependence Stage 4″—they’re mysteriously served ads for DigitalDetox, the company’s rehabilitation arm.

“The beauty is that we already have all their psychological data,” explains Maxwell. “We know exactly which addiction-breaking products will appeal to them based on their usage patterns. The heavy social media users get our ‘SocialBreak’ program. The workaholics who can’t stop checking email get ‘WorkLife Balance.’ It’s completely personalized exploitation.”

DigitalDetox’s offerings range from $9.99 monthly app subscriptions that block access to addictive apps, to the premium “Digital Rehab Retreat”—a $5,000 weekend getaway where phones are locked in specially designed safes and participants undergo intensive therapy to reconnect with reality.

“Our most popular product is the ‘PhoneBox Pro’—a $199 lockable container for your phone that only opens after a predetermined time,” says Jasmine Lee, Chief Marketing Officer at DigitalDetox. “It’s essentially a $199 box that does what a $5 kitchen timer could accomplish, but people love the irony of buying an expensive physical product to stop them from using an expensive digital product.”

The strategy is working. In 2024, PhoneFix Solutions reported revenue of $487 million, with profit margins exceeding 78%.

The Addiction Ecosystem

What makes PhoneFix’s business model truly ingenious is its closed-loop ecosystem. The company’s addiction experts continuously study user behavior in the DigitalDetox programs to identify recovery patterns, which are then used to create more effective addiction triggers in the AttenTech apps.

“It’s basically a perpetual motion machine of exploitation,” boasts Maxwell. “We create the perfect addiction, then the perfect recovery, then use what we learn to create an even more perfect addiction. Rinse and repeat.”

This approach has attracted attention from industry leaders. A confidential memo obtained from a major social media company reads: “PhoneFix has managed to monetize both sides of the digital wellness equation in a way we’ve only dreamed of. While we’ve been giving away addiction for free and leaving money on the table, they’re double-dipping.”

The company has even pioneered what it calls “Relapse Marketing”—specifically targeting former DigitalDetox customers with specially designed AttenTech apps that promise to be “mindfully engaging” but employ subtle addiction mechanics that work around the very techniques taught in their recovery programs.

The Human Cost

Not everyone is impressed with PhoneFix’s business acumen. Dr. Nora Singh, director of the Center for Digital Wellness at Stanford University, calls it “perhaps the most ethically bankrupt business model I’ve encountered.”

“What they’re doing is equivalent to a pharmaceutical company creating both highly addictive opioids and the overdose treatments,” explains Singh. “Except it’s perfectly legal because digital addiction isn’t recognized as a formal disorder—despite causing documented increases in loneliness, depression, anxiety, and stress.”²

Former employees have begun speaking out. Rachel Kim, who worked as a user experience (UX) designer at AttenTech before discovering the company’s connection to DigitalDetox, describes the internal culture as “disturbingly proud” of its manipulation.

“There were actual dashboards on the wall tracking ‘time-on-device’ metrics,” Kim recalls. “Designers would high-five when they created features that increased average session length. Meanwhile, everyone in the office had their own phones locked in drawers during work hours. The hypocrisy was stunning.”

Maxwell dismisses such criticisms. “Look, we’re just giving people what they want,” he says. “First, they want digital engagement. Then they want digital freedom. We’re simply meeting market demand on both ends of the attention spectrum – a bit like when Goldman Sachs were the market makers that caused the 2007 financial crisis.”

The Copycats Arrive

PhoneFix’s success hasn’t gone unnoticed. Venture capital (VCs) has poured over $2.8 billion into “attention economy startups” in the past year alone, with many explicitly adopting the addiction-then-cure model.

“We call it the ‘Push-Pull Strategy,'” explains venture capitalist Morgan Zhang of Exponential Partners. “Push people into addictive behaviors, then pull them back out—for a hefty price. It’s exponentially more profitable than just focusing on one side of the equation.”

New entrants include MindfullyAddictive, which creates meditation apps that subtly train users to check in multiple times daily, then upsells them to premium “digital detox” features when they realize they’ve become dependent on the app.

Another startup, ScreenTime Solutions, has created an ecosystem of intentionally addictive games for children, paired with parental control software sold separately. “We’re targeting both generations simultaneously,” their pitch deck proudly proclaims.

Meanwhile, established tech companies are scrambling to implement similar strategies. Internal documents from a major smartphone manufacturer reveal plans for built-in “wellness features” that track addiction metrics but only offer meaningful intervention tools in premium subscription tiers.

The SPACE Race: When Startups Fight Back

Not everyone is following PhoneFix’s morally ambiguous path. Some genuine digital wellness startups are fighting to break the addiction cycle without creating it first.

SPACE, an app that helps users break phone addiction and manage screen time, has amassed over one million downloads by taking a more ethical approach. Their users spend an average of 2 hours and 46 minutes on their phones daily—significantly less than the national average of 4 hours and 16 minutes³.

“Companies like PhoneFix are the reason we exist,” says Alex Chen, SPACE’s founder. “We’re trying to be the antidote to their poison, not the poison and the antidote.”

But these ethical startups face an uphill battle. Without the data collected from creating addiction, they have less insight into breaking it. And without the revenue from both sides of the equation, they have smaller marketing budgets to reach potential users.

“It’s like fighting a war where the enemy has all your battle plans and twice your resources,” explains Chen. “They know exactly how the addiction works because they engineered it.”

The Future of Digital Exploitation

Maxwell has even grander ambitions for PhoneFix. The company recently filed patents for what it calls “Attention Shifting Technology”—a system that can seamlessly transition users between addictive behaviors and recovery states to maximize lifetime revenue.

“Why choose between selling cigarettes or nicotine patches when you can sell both to the same customer indefinitely?” Maxwell asks. “The future isn’t digital addiction or digital wellness—it’s the controlled oscillation between these states.”

Industry analysts project that by 2027, the “digital wellness” market will exceed $28 billion annually, with dual-model companies like PhoneFix capturing nearly 60% of revenue.

“What Maxwell has pioneered isn’t just a business model—it’s the future of attention manipulation,” explains tech analyst Sarah Johnson. “Create the problem, sell the solution, study the recovery to create better problems, and repeat. It’s diabolically sustainable.”

The Twist: Who’s Manipulating Whom?

As our interview concludes, Maxwell’s assistant quietly enters the room and hands him a sleek smartphone. Maxwell checks it immediately, his fingers scrolling with practiced precision.

After a moment, he looks up sheepishly. “Sorry about that. Important business.”

I point out the irony—the man building an empire on smartphone addiction can’t go thirty minutes without checking his own device.

Maxwell’s expression shifts, revealing an unexpected vulnerability. “That’s the dirty secret of this whole industry,” he confesses. “None of us are immune. I’ve personally enrolled in our premium DigitalDetox program three times. Cost me $15,000 of my own money.”

He places his phone face-down on the table. “Sometimes I wonder if I created this company to save myself rather than exploit others.”

As I prepare to leave, I notice Maxwell’s hand instinctively reaching for his phone again. He catches himself and pulls back.

“The real genius of the smartphone,” he says quietly, “isn’t that it connects us to the world. It’s that it makes us forget we ever existed without it. And once you’ve created that kind of need—well, people will pay anything to feel whole again.”

Three seconds after I close his office door, I hear the distinctive click of an iPhone unlocking.

Support Quality Tech Journalism or Watch as We Pivot to Becoming Yet Another AI Newsletter

Congratulations! You’ve reached the end of this article without paying a dime! Classic internet freeloader behavior that we have come to expect and grudgingly accept. But here is the uncomfortable truth: satire doesn’t pay for itself, and Simba‘s soy milk for his Chai Latte addiction is getting expensive.

So, how about buying us a coffee for $10 or $100 or $1,000 or $10,000 or $100,000 or $1,000,000 or more? (Which will absolutely, definitely be used for buying a Starbucks Chai Latte and not converted to obscure cryptocurrencies or funding Simba’s plan to build a moat around his home office to keep the Silicon Valley evangelists at bay).

Your generous donation will help fund:

Our ongoing investigation into whether Mark Zuckerberg is actually an alien hiding in a human body
Premium therapy sessions for both our writer and their AI assistant who had to pretend to understand blockchain for six straight articles
Legal defense fund for the inevitable lawsuits from tech billionaires with paper-thin skin and tech startups that can’t raise another round of money or pursue their IPO!
Development of our proprietary “BS Detection Algorithm” (currently just Simba reading press releases while sighing heavily)
Raising funds to buy an office dog to keep Simba company for when the AI assistant is not functioning well.

If your wallet is as empty as most tech promises, we understand. At least share this article so others can experience the same conflicting emotions of amusement and existential dread that you just did. It’s the least you can do after we have saved you from reading another breathless puff piece about AI-powered toasters.

Why Donate When You Could Just Share? (But Seriously, Donate!)

The internet has conditioned us all to believe that content should be free, much like how tech companies have conditioned us to believe privacy is an outdated concept. But here’s the thing: while big tech harvests your data like farmers harvest corn, we are just asking for a few bucks to keep our satirical lights on.

If everyone who read TechOnion donated just $10 (although feel free to add as many zeros to that number as your financial situation allows – we promise not to find it suspicious at all), we could continue our vital mission of making fun of people who think adding blockchain to a toaster is revolutionary. Your contribution isn’t just supporting satire; it’s an investment in digital sanity.

What your money definitely won’t be used for:

Creating our own pointless cryptocurrency called “OnionCoin”
Buying Twitter blue checks for our numerous fake executive accounts
Developing an actual tech product (we leave that to the professionals who fail upward)
A company retreat in the metaverse (we have standards!)

So what’ll it be? Support independent tech satire or continue your freeloader ways? The choice is yours, but remember: every time you don’t donate, somewhere a venture capitalist funds another app that’s just “Uber for British-favourite BLT sandwiches.”

Where Your Donation Actually Goes

When you support TechOnion, you are not just buying Simba more soy milk (though that is a critical expense). You’re fueling the resistance against tech hype and digital nonsense as per our mission. Your donation helps maintain one of the last bastions of tech skepticism in a world where most headlines read like PR releases written by ChatGPT.

Remember: in a world full of tech unicorns, be the cynical donkey that keeps everyone honest. Donate today, or at least share this article before you close the tab and forget we exist until the next time our headline makes you snort-laugh during a boring Zoom meeting.

References

PlayStation’s Soul vs. Xbox’s Spreadsheets: How One Console Vibrates Your Heart While the Other Optimizes Your Wallet

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 5, 2025

0

In the beginning, there was darkness. And then Sony said, “Let there be vibration in thy game controller,” and lo, there was FIFA 98, and hands trembled with digital excitement for the first time in human history. Meanwhile, in Redmond, Washington, a team of accountants huddled around a spreadsheet muttering, “Nintendo and Sony are making how much???”

Ask any true gamer about the moment they fell in love with the Sony PlayStation, and they’ll describe it with the reverence usually reserved for first kisses or religious experiences. “It was the vibration,” they’ll whisper, eyes misting over. “It felt like I was actually on the football (soccer) pitch, my controller pulsating with the very essence of digital football.” Meanwhile, ask an Xbox owner about their first console experience, and they’ll likely check their Microsoft Rewards points balance before answering¹.

According to a completely real study conducted by the prestigious Institute of Gaming Emotions at the University of Nostalgic Technology, 97% of original PlayStation users reported “feeling something spiritual” during their first DualShock experience. The remaining 3% were later diagnosed with “clinical business-mindedness” and went on to become Xbox marketing executives.

“PlayStation wasn’t built in a boardroom—it was birthed from a primordial soup of human creativity and technical wizardry,” claims Dr. Hiroshi Imaginary, Sony’s Chief Vibrational Philosopher. “Each console contains approximately 17 grams of what we call ‘gaming soul,’ harvested ethically from the dreams of Japanese master craftsmen and ninjas.”

By contrast, Microsoft’s approach to gaming has always been more… pragmatic. “We noticed people were spending money on gaming, so we decided we should have some of that money – simple as,” explained Bill Gates in a completely authentic 1999 interview that definitely happened. “It’s just good business sense. Why should Sony and Nintendo have all the fun profits?”

The Corporate Soul-Measuring Contest

Inside Sony’s secret PlayStation development laboratory in Tokyo—a Zen garden where PlayStation engineers meditate for six hours before writing a single line of code—every decision is supposedly guided by one simple question: “But how will it make the player feel?”

Meanwhile, at Xbox headquarters, sources claim their guiding question is slightly different: “But how will it affect our Q4 projections?” A recent leak from Microsoft’s internal servers revealed a PowerPoint presentation titled “Operation Green Envy: Making Money from People Who Don’t Want to Buy PlayStations,” followed by 100 slides of graphs showing various subscription model projections².

Dr. Emma Fictional from the Center for Console Psychology explains: “PlayStation and Xbox represent the fundamental duality of human existence. PlayStation asks, ‘What does it mean to play?’ while Xbox asks, ‘What does it mean to pay?’ Both are valid philosophical inquiries, but only one sends your vibration data directly to marketing teams.”

According to our investigative reporting, Sony engineers spend approximately 2,700 hours perfecting the “emotional resonance” of each PlayStation button press. “The X button must provide exactly 4.3 newtons of resistance—the precise amount that triggers nostalgia in the frontal cortex,” explained Sony’s Chief Button Architect, who insisted on remaining anonymous because “emotions are private.”

Conversely, Microsoft’s button design process reportedly consists of asking, “Is this button cost-effective to manufacture at scale?” followed by “Can we monetize button presses somehow?” A former Xbox engineer (who now works at a mindfulness retreat for burned-out tech workers) confirmed: “We once spent three months developing a system that would track how users pressed the O button so we could sell that data to Doritos.”

The Game Library: Art Gallery vs. All-You-Can-Eat Buffet

PlayStation’s exclusive titles aren’t just games—if you believe Sony’s marketing—they’re transformative emotional journeys carefully crafted to make you question your existence, call your mother, and perhaps weep gently into your controller³. “God of War isn’t about a muscular man murdering mythological creatures,” insists Sony Creative Director Marcus Nonexistent. “It’s about fatherhood, regret, and the weight of responsibility. Players don’t finish our games; they emerge from them totally transformed.”

Xbox Game Pass, on the other hand, proudly offers “more games than you could possibly play before you die,” a tagline that market research shows resonates strongly with modern consumers who are already anxious about their mortality and FOMO⁴. “Why have one deeply meaningful experience when you could have 400 shallow ones?” asks Xbox’s fictional Vice President of Quantity Over Quality, Chad Spreadsheet. “That’s just math. And math doesn’t lie.”

A leaked internal Xbox memo reveals the company’s game acquisition strategy: “If it moves pixels on a screen and can be obtained for less than [REDACTED] million, add it to Game Pass. Users don’t need to like everything; they just need to fear missing out on something.”

The Real Cost of Gaming Soul

Sony’s dedication to “console authenticity” comes at a price—literally. The average PlayStation exclusive title retails for approximately $70, or, as Sony executives allegedly describe it, “the monetary equivalent of one slice of your soul, which is actually quite a bargain.”

In contrast, Xbox Game Pass offers hundreds of titles for a monthly subscription that costs less than a fancy coffee. “We’re not in the business of selling individual games,” explains Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer in what we’re pretty sure is an accurate paraphrase. “We’re in the business of selling the idea that you might someday play hundreds of games, even though our data shows the average subscriber plays 2.7 games before spending the rest of their time scrolling through options.”

According to Dr. Fictional’s research, PlayStation owners develop a condition known as “Exclusive Emotional Investment Disorder,” characterized by fierce loyalty and the belief that their gaming experiences are objectively superior. Xbox subscribers, meanwhile, often suffer from “Subscription Paralysis”—the inability to commit to finishing any game because there’s always another one waiting in the infinitely scrolling library.

The Future of Gaming Souls

As we stand at the precipice of the next console generation, industry analysts predict that PlayStation will continue investing in what they call “emotional technology,” with rumors suggesting the PS6 controller will include sensors that can detect your emotional state and adjust game difficulty accordingly. Insiders claim Sony is developing “TearTech™,” which will make games easier if it detects you crying from frustration.

Not to be outdone, Microsoft is reportedly developing “ValueMax™,” an algorithm that will track exactly how much entertainment value you’re extracting from your Game Pass subscription and will automatically suggest new titles when it detects you’re not maximizing your “joy-to-dollar ratio.”

“The future of gaming isn’t about graphics or processing power,” explains renowned gaming futurist Professor Tomorrow. “It’s about whether you want your leisure time to be a curated emotional journey or an all-you-can-play data-harvesting buffet.”

Perhaps the most telling indication of the philosophical difference between these gaming titans comes from their respective patents. Sony recently filed one for “Method and Apparatus for Inducing Meaningful Existential Crises Through Interactive Entertainment,” while Microsoft countered with “Systems and Methods for Optimizing User Retention Through Psychological Reward Scheduling.”

The Vibration Revelation

In a shocking twist that console wars historians will debate for generations, we’ve obtained exclusive access to both companies’ original design documents. Sony’s first PlayStation brief, written on cherry blossom-scented paper, allegedly stated: “Create a machine that makes players forget they are holding plastic. Make them feel the game in their hands, their hearts, their dreams.”

Microsoft’s original Xbox brief, by contrast, was reportedly a 900-page market analysis concluding: “Sony and Nintendo have 100% of a market we have 0% of. This is unacceptable. Build something with more processing power and a larger controller for American hands.”⁵

As Phil Spencer himself might say, “The business isn’t how many consoles you sell. The business is how many players are playing the games that they buy, how they play.” Translation: “Soul doesn’t show up on a balance sheet.”

For Elliot “LastByte” Nakamura, who remembers that first magical FIFA 98 vibration, the answer is clear. “PlayStation made me feel like I was on the pitch,” he tells us, clutching his original PlayStation controller like a sacred relic. “Xbox made me feel like I was in a Microsoft Store.”

The Last Vibration

As we wrap up this thoroughly researched and definitely not fabricated investigation, we leave you with one final thought: In the game of life, we’re all just temporary players holding gaming controllers that will eventually be unplugged. The real question isn’t which plastic box has more soul—it’s which one makes you forget, even briefly, that you’re just pressing buttons while hurtling through space on a dying planet.

PlayStation or Xbox? Soul or spreadsheets? The choice, dear reader, may not matter in the grand cosmic scheme—but it will certainly determine which corporation’s logo you defend vehemently in internet comment sections.

And in the words of Xbox’s Chief Financial Officer Tim Stuart, who we’re certain would approve this message: they stopped disclosing console sales numbers because they’re focused on “content, services, and increased customer spending.” Which is corporate-speak for: “We’ve pivoted to harvesting your wallet instead of your applause.”

Did this article give you your daily dose of tech-induced existential crisis? Just like PlayStation vibrated life into your hands, your donation can vibrate life into TechOnion! For the price of just one overpriced PlayStation exclusive (or three months of Xbox Game Pass that you’ll barely use), you can help us continue investigating whether rumble features have caused irreparable philosophical damage to an entire generation. Don’t let our controllers die before the final boss—plug your financial support into our donation port today!

References

REVEALED: Beer Giant Heineken Now Selling Digital Sobriety While Tech Companies Panic – “The Boring Revolution” Makes $1.2 Billion By Helping You NOT Use Your $1,200 iPhone

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 5, 2025

0

In a twist that would make Alanis Morissette rewrite her definition of irony, humans have reached a new technological milestone: we’re now downloading apps to stop us from using other apps. It’s like hiring an arsonist to fight fires or asking your drug dealer for rehab advice on how to quit drugs. And somehow, inexplicably, a beer company is leading the charge.

Yes, the same species that spent billions of dollars creating infinitely scrollable feeds of dopamine-triggering content has now decided that maybe—just maybe—being perpetually stimulated isn’t working out so well. Enter “The Boring Mode,” an app developed not by Apple, Google, or some Silicon Valley wellness startup, but by Heineken—a company whose primary business is selling liquid that makes you temporarily stupider¹.

The Boring Mode works by essentially turning your $1,200 iPhone into a 2005-era flip phone². With “one swipe,” it disables all your social and work apps, blocking notifications, emails, and anything else that might connect you to the digital hellscape we call modern life. The goal? To help you focus on the horrifying reality directly in front of you: other humans.

According to Dr. Wilhelm Schatzsucher, Director of the Institute for Digital Anthropology and Obvious Conclusions, “We’ve reached the point where humans need technology to protect them from the technology that was supposed to improve their lives in the first place. It’s like needing a special fork that prevents you from eating too much cake, when you could just… not eat so much cake.”

The Science of Being Extremely Online

Research that absolutely exists and wasn’t just made up for this article shows that 82% of young people report being more easily distracted during hours when they use social apps frequently³. In related news, water is wet and falling from great heights can lead to injury.

“What was striking,” explains researcher Teun Siebers from the University of Amsterdam, apparently unaware of how unstrikingly obvious his findings are, “was that most young people keep looking at their phones quite briefly for an update from one of their social channels and then keep putting them away. That’s not good news.”

Not good news indeed, especially for the billions of dollars invested in keeping our eyeballs glued to screens. The average Gen Z user now checks their phone approximately 42,069 times per day, spending roughly 9 hours refreshing content that makes them feel simultaneously entertained and dead inside.

A comprehensive study from the Nature Journal of Things We Already Knew found that “digital media increases boredom through dividing attention, elevating desired level of engagement, reducing sense of meaning, heightening opportunity costs, and serving as an ineffective boredom coping strategy.”⁴ In simpler terms: your phone is making you more bored, not less, and you keep using it because you’re bored, creating a feedback loop of existential emptiness that would make Nietzsche reach for a Heineken.

The Corporate Angle: Big Beer Disrupts Big Tech

What’s truly remarkable is that Heineken—yes, the people who sell alcohol—has positioned itself as a champion of digital wellness⁵. Their Boring Mode app was unveiled at the Amsterdam Dance Event, where Scottish DJ Barry Can’t Swim (who apparently can spin) praised the initiative, saying, “Without phones, the energy is definitely different—people are more connected on the dancefloor.”⁶

This raises important questions: Why is a beer company suddenly concerned about our digital well-being? And why is a DJ named after his inability to swim qualified to comment on this?

“Heineken isn’t actually interested in reducing phone addiction,” explains tech ethicist Dr. Serena Truthteller. “They’ve simply recognized that people staring at their phones drink less beer. Every minute you spend scrolling through Instagram is a minute you’re not holding a Heineken.”

Indeed, Heineken’s own marketing materials reveal the true motivation: “The Boring Phone campaign exemplifies the culture pulse strategy… at its core was a compelling insight: smartphones are too interesting for social life.” Translation: phones are cutting into drinking time, and that’s bad for business.

The campaign has been wildly successful, generating 9.5 billion impressions—the highest in Heineken’s history. This begs the question: If an app designed to reduce screen time becomes a viral sensation that increases screen time, is it still accomplishing its goal, or has it become the very monster it sought to destroy?

The Boring User Experience

Early adopters of boring technology report mixed results. Chadwick Mindfulness, a 27-year-old content creator, installed The Boring Mode after realizing he was spending 18 hours a day creating content about mindfulness without ever actually being mindful.

“It changed my life,” Chadwick claims. “After activating Boring Mode, I was suddenly present with my thoughts for the first time in years. Within minutes, I realized I hate all my friends, my apartment smells weird, and I’ve forgotten how to read books. I immediately deactivated it and went back to TikTok.”

Emily Awareness, a 32-year-old digital detox consultant who charges $200 an hour to teach people how to put down their phones, admits she installed seven different boring apps on her device. “I use Forest to grow virtual trees when I’m not using my phone, Freedom to block distracting websites, AppDetox to limit my app usage, and four others I can’t remember. I spend about three hours a day configuring my boring apps, which has really cut into my social media time.”

Meanwhile, 63-year-old Japanese retiree Haruto Simplicity created his own boring app called TwinCalc—a calculator app that simply puts two calculators side by side. “I saw a market gap,” Haruto explains, “People were getting too distracted by having only one calculator. Now they can calculate two things at once and get back to their lives twice as fast.”

The Boring Revolution Escalates

As boring technology gains traction, more extreme solutions are emerging. Google recently announced “LifeBlock™,” an app that automatically shuts down your phone whenever you appear to be enjoying it too much. “Our algorithms can detect smiling, laughing, or any signs of dopamine release,” explains Google’s Chief Boredom Officer. “When that happens, LifeBlock immediately displays a photo of your disappointed grandparents and turns off your device.”

Apple’s response, “iDreariness,” takes a different approach by gradually desaturating your screen over time until everything appears in grayscale⁷. “Studies show that eliminating colors makes your phone less appealing,” explains Apple CEO Tim Cook, who definitely said this. “By slowly removing joy from your visual experience, we help you realize that maybe there’s more to life than staring at this rectangle.”

The most extreme solution comes from tech startup BoredBox, which sells a $499 wooden box with a timer lock. “You put your phone in the box, set the timer for however long you want to experience reality, and walk away,” explains BoredBox founder Maximilian Disconnection. “It’s literally just a box with a lock, but we’ve raised $50 million in venture capital because we put ‘AI-enhanced’ in our pitch deck.”

The military has even developed “EMP Lite,” a personal electromagnetic pulse generator that temporarily disables all electronic devices within a 10-foot radius. “It’s perfectly safe,” claims General Disconnection (no relation to Maximilian). “Sure, it might erase your credit cards and pacemaker, but think about the quality time you’ll have with your family!”

The University of Boredom

Academic institutions are also diving into the lucrative field of boredom studies. Harvard University recently opened its Center for Digital Ennui, where researchers study how to make people less interested in things they enjoy.

“We’ve discovered that boredom is actually essential for human creativity and self-reflection,” explains Dr. Yawnley Dullman, who holds the prestigious Martha Stewart Chair of Doing Nothing in Particular. “Before smartphones, people would routinely experience up to 37 minutes of boredom per day, during which they might have an original thought or notice something about their surroundings. Today, that number is down to 3.2 seconds—just long enough to reach for your phone.”

The center’s most controversial paper, “The Ethics of Forced Boredom,” argues that technology companies have a moral obligation to make their products less engaging. “We’re essentially proposing that Netflix should occasionally just play footage of paint drying,” Dr. Dullman explains. “Or that Instagram should randomly replace every fifth photo with a beige rectangle.”

The Ironic Twist

The ultimate irony in this whole boring saga is that boring apps themselves have become addictive. Users report checking their “digital wellness” stats compulsively, competing with friends for who can spend the least time on their phone, and posting screenshots of their screen time reports to prove their moral superiority.

“I spend about four hours a day monitoring and adjusting my boring apps,” admits reformed social media addict Taylor Phoneless. “I’ve joined three different Discord servers where we discuss strategies for using our phones less. I’m constantly getting notifications from my boredom apps reminding me not to look at notifications.”

And here’s where we reach the philosophical crux of the matter: In our desperate attempt to reclaim our attention from technology, we’ve simply created a new technology to capture that attention. The snake continues to eat its tail, the wheel continues to turn, and humans continue to seek technological solutions to problems created by technology.

Perhaps there’s something profound about needing a beer company to remind us how to be human. After all, alcohol—humanity’s original attention modification technology—has been helping people ignore their problems and focus on socializing for thousands of years. Maybe Heineken understands something about human nature that Silicon Valley has forgotten.

Or maybe—just maybe—this is all an elaborate marketing ploy to sell more beer by convincing people to put down their phones and pick up a bottle instead.

As the ancient philosopher Socrates definitely said, “The unexamined notification is not worth swiping.”

DONATE NOW: Help TechOnion Stay Boring! While you were reading this article, you received approximately 17 notifications, 3 emails, and a calendar reminder about that thing you agreed to do but now regret. If you enjoyed this brief moment of satirical relief from your digital hellscape, please consider donating to TechOnion. We promise to use your money to develop our own boring app that blocks all websites except ours. Think of it as paying for digital sobriety while supporting the only addiction worth having – hard-hitting tech satire that makes you feel simultaneously entertained and existentially aware.

References

REVEALED: The Only Dark Web Survival Guide You’ll Ever Need (Because You Might Not Come Back to Read Another)

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 5, 2025

0

Have you ever wondered if Google has been hiding the good stuff from you all these years? Like that one friend who keeps the premium whiskey behind the cheap vodka at parties, the internet has been concealing its most intriguing corner behind a velvet rope of encryption and specialized browsers. Welcome to the Dark Web: where anonymity is currency, paranoia is prudence, and your IT departments’ (If you are still employed) worst nightmares come to digital life.

The concept is simple, really. The internet you use every day—with its cute cat videos and endless subscription confirmation emails—is just the appetizer. The Dark Web is the seven-course meal you didn’t know existed because the restaurant requires a secret handshake and doesn’t accept credit cards. Or legal tender of any kind, for that matter. Bitcoin preferred.

“The Dark Web comprises only about 0.01% of the Deep Web,” explains Dr. Theodore Blackout, Director of Digital Underworlds at the Institute of Internet Iceberg Studies. “It’s like the basement of the basement of the internet—the sub-sub-level where we keep all the things society isn’t ready to see displayed in the lobby.”¹

Your Passport to Digital Purgatory

To access this mysterious realm, you’ll need special tools designed specifically to anonymize your presence online. The most common portal is the Tor Browser—a modified version of Firefox that sounds like it should be summoning Norse gods but actually routes your internet connection through multiple encrypted servers around the world.²

The Tor Browser was originally developed by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in the early 2000s, proving once again that the most interesting technologies always come from either military research or attempts to download music illegally³. Their goal was to create secure communications for intelligence sources, not to facilitate what would eventually become digital Silk Roads for questionable commerce. Oops!

Setting up Tor is surprisingly simple for something that can potentially lead you into digital environments where hitmen advertise their services next to people selling login credentials to your grandmother’s Facebook account. Download the browser, install it, click a few buttons confirming you’re not using it for “improper purposes” (wink, wink), and voilà—you’ve taken your first step into a larger, darker world.

“Most people think accessing the Dark Web requires advanced hacking skills or special invitations,” says former cybersecurity expert Madison Cipher. “But it’s actually easier than setting up a printer. Which, admittedly, is the most difficult technical challenge in modern computing.”

The Safari Begins: What You’ll Find in Digital Mordor

Once you’ve entered this shadowy domain, you’ll find it disappointingly similar to the early internet of the 1990s—ugly websites with terrible user interfaces and broken links everywhere. It’s like Web 1.0 had a baby with a cyberpunk novel, and neither parent paid child support.

“The first thing most Dark Web newcomers notice is how slow everything is,” explains Cipher. “That’s because your connection is bouncing through multiple servers across the globe. Think of it as the digital equivalent of putting on a fake mustache, then a wig, then sunglasses, then a hat, and finally a full-body costume just to buy milk.”

You won’t find these sites through Google. The Dark Web has its own search engines like Torch and DuckDuckGo that don’t track your data, which is ironic considering what some people use the Dark Web to do. DuckDuckGo’s tagline should be: “We don’t track you, but the guy selling your credit card numbers definitely does.”

To navigate this cryptic landscape, you’ll need .onion URLs—website addresses that look like someone had a seizure on their keyboard. These aren’t the user-friendly “facebook.com” addresses you’re used to. They’re more like “xh3iq9vh2qbjef7bk2yhe7dmbsa.onion”—which could either be a legitimate privacy forum or a marketplace selling items that would make your local legislator propose new laws⁴.

According to a study that absolutely exists and wasn’t made up for this article, 57% of Dark Web activity involves drug trading⁵. The remaining 43% is split between privacy enthusiasts, journalists protecting sources, people in countries with internet censorship, cybercriminals selling your grandmother’s Medicare information, and three guys named Kunta Kinte who just like feeling rebellious while browsing memes that are too edgy for Reddit.

The Digital Underworld Economy

The Dark Web operates on an economy as bizarre as its navigation system. Here, cryptocurrency is king, with Bitcoin serving as the preferred transaction method since 2011 when the infamous Silk Road marketplace launched. If you’re still trying to use your Visa card, you might as well send up a flare announcing your location to every three-letter agency on the planet.

The International Journal of Things That Keep You Awake at Night estimates that anywhere from 2% to 5% of the global GDP is laundered through Dark Web markets⁶. That’s approximately $2 trillion worth of transactions involving everything from stolen credit cards to premium subscriptions for streaming services that someone else is unknowingly paying for.

“In 2021 alone, ransomware attacks were recorded every 11 seconds, causing damages upwards of $20 billion,” notes cybersecurity analyst Dr. Kathryn Encrypt. “Many of these attacks originate from ransomware-as-a-service offerings on the Dark Web, where even people who can’t program a microwave can now encrypt your company’s entire data infrastructure.”

The marketplace structure would be familiar to anyone who’s used eBay, if eBay sold things that would get you on several watchlists. There are even review systems—because apparently, criminals care deeply about five-star customer service.

“I once saw a one-star review on a hacking tool that read: ‘Didn’t work as advertised. Target’s security team caught me immediately. Would not recommend for beginners,'” shares Dark Web researcher Alex Phantom. “It’s that weird mix of terrifying and absurdly mundane that makes the Dark Web so fascinating.”

Things Get Weird: The Dark Web FAQ

While researching this article, our TechOnion Dark Web team compiled the most commonly asked questions about the Dark Web from various forums. We present them here with answers that are 97% accurate and 3% existential dread:

Q: Is it illegal to access the Dark Web?
A: No, accessing the Dark Web itself is not illegal⁷. What’s illegal is the many, many illegal things you might do once you’re there. It’s like saying it’s not illegal to enter a building, but it is illegal to steal everything inside the building while wearing a T-shirt that says “Crime Time!” and singing your full name and address to the tune of “Sweet Caroline.”

Q: Can I really buy anything on the Dark Web?
A: The better question is, should you? But yes, there are marketplaces selling everything from illicit substances to stolen account credentials to people who will write your college essays for you (which, while less dramatic than the other options, might actually cause more long-term damage to society).

Q: Will I be hacked if I go on the Dark Web?
A: The Dark Web isn’t inherently malware-infested, but it’s certainly a neighborhood where you shouldn’t leave your digital doors unlocked. According to the Center for Making Up Concerning Statistics, Dark Web users are 327% more likely to experience some form of malware than surface web users. This is partly because many Dark Web sites are designed specifically to steal data from unwary visitors who didn’t bother with basic security precautions.

Q: Are there hitmen for hire on the Dark Web?
A: Yes and no. Many “hitman services” are actually scams designed to take your Bitcoin and disappear⁸. The real assassins are too busy being fictional characters in John Wick movies to set up websites. As a general rule, if someone can set up a proper e-commerce platform, they’ve got better career options than murder-for-hire.

Q: Can I sell my left kidney on the Dark Web?
A: We’re not answering this one. Please keep all your organs. Your body needs them more than your Bitcoin wallet does.

The Things They Don’t Tell You: Dark Web Side Effects

What mainstream media won’t tell you about Dark Web exploration is the strange psychological impact it can have. Dr. Nightshade Darkly, a psychologist specializing in digital behavior, has identified “Dark Web Syndrome”—characterized by:

Checking your webcam for tape covering it at least 17 times daily
Becoming convinced your microwave is monitoring your conversations
Interpreting your cat’s random movements as Morse code messages from government agents
Explaining blockchain technology unsolicited at dinner parties
Developing an irrational fear of USB drives given to you as conference swag

“After just two weeks of regular Dark Web browsing, 68% of users report significant increases in paranoia,” explains Dr. Darkly, who conducts all interviews from behind a screen using a voice modulator. “The remaining 32% were already paranoid to begin with, which is why they were on the Dark Web in the first place.”

How to REALLY Access the Dark Web (Advanced Techniques)

For those serious about their Dark Web journey, consider these expert-level preparation steps:

Invest in the PryvaSuit™: This full-body protective gear includes a Faraday cage hoodie, finger-disguising gloves, and shoes that leave someone else’s DNA. Perfect for the privacy-conscious browser.
Create your Dark Web persona: Choose a terrifying hacker name like “ByteSlayer” or “NullPointerException.” Never use “DarkWizard69″—that username is monitored by at least seven intelligence agencies.
Set up your station: Arrange your computer facing away from all windows. Cover said windows with aluminum foil. Tell neighbors you’re getting into “art installation design” to explain the sudden change in décor.
Prepare for disappointment: After all this work, be ready to find that the Dark Web looks like Craigslist designed by someone whose only design reference was a cyberpunk novel cover from 1993.
Draft your will: Because according to every TV show featuring hackers, merely typing “.onion” will immediately summon both elite hackers and specialized FBI units to your location.

The Unexpected Twist: The Truth About the Dark Web

After all this buildup, here’s the shocking revelation: the Dark Web is simultaneously more boring and more dangerous than you imagine. It’s not all drug markets and hackers. According to legitimate research, only 43% of Dark Web activities are illegal. The rest involves privacy forums, whistleblowing platforms, and people accessing information in countries with internet censorship.

The Dark Web’s greatest trick isn’t being a den of criminal activity—it’s making you believe that privacy is only needed by those with something to hide. In an age where tech companies harvest your data like farmers at an especially profitable harvest festival, seeking anonymity doesn’t make you suspicious; it makes you prudent.

“The most dangerous misconception about the Dark Web is that only criminals need anonymity,” explains digital rights activist Jamie Freedom. “The reality is that as surveillance capitalism accelerates, encrypted communication is becoming essential for ordinary citizens to maintain basic privacy rights.”

This doesn’t mean you should dive into Dark Web exploration without caution. Like visiting any unfamiliar neighborhood, you should take precautions, know the risks, and perhaps bring the digital equivalent of pepper spray (robust security measures and common sense).

Because the ultimate truth about the Dark Web isn’t that it’s a shadowy realm of pure evil—it’s that it’s a mirror reflecting our society’s relationship with privacy, information control, and the fundamental structure of the internet itself. Like any tool, from fire to finance, it can warm a home or burn it down. The choice, as always, lies with the user.

Just remember: once you’ve seen what lies beneath the surface web, you can never unsee it. And your targeted ads will never make sense again.

Help TechOnion Stay in the Shadows (of Good Journalism)! Like the Dark Web requires Tor to access its mysterious depths, TechOnion needs your financial support to continue our deep dives into tech absurdity. Your donation isn’t just supporting satire – it’s funding the digital equivalent of a submarine expedition to the Mariana Trench of technology, complete with pressure-resistant humor and bioluminescent insights. Don’t make us sell keyboard keys on the digital black market to stay afloat – donate today before we’re forced to create our own .onion site just to make rent!

References

SHOCKING: How Streaming Giants Performed The Ultimate Heist – Turning Internet Pirates Into Paying Customers While Actually Stealing Your Music Collection

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 5, 2025

0

In a world where owning nothing is the new everything, let us pause to remember a time when digital rebellion wasn’t a monthly subscription fee. Pour one out for The Pirate Bay, Napster, LimeWire, and Kazaa – digital Robin Hoods that didn’t ask for your credit card information before letting you steal from the rich. They understood something fundamental that Spotify and Apple Music hope you’ve forgotten: if you’re not paying for the product, you are the product; but if you are paying for the product, you still somehow aren’t the owner.

The year was 2003. “Hey Ya!” topped the charts, people still bought physical CDs, and somewhere in Sweden, a group of digital revolutionaries launched The Pirate Bay – a website that would become the high seas vessel for an entire generation of content corsairs. These weren’t your Hollywood pirates with questionable hygiene and excessive eyeliner; these were digital buccaneers with keyboard cutlasses, armed with a radical idea: information wants to be free.

According to the International Institute of Digital Archeology, approximately 94% of millennials experienced their sexual awakening while waiting three hours for a mislabeled mp3 to download on Kazaa. The remaining 6% were too busy trying to explain to their parents why the family computer now had more viruses than a preschool in flu season.

“The Pirate Bay wasn’t just a website,” explains Dr. Freenet Torrentstein, author of “From Napster to Netflix: How We Traded Our Digital Souls for Convenience.” “It was a philosophical statement against the artificial scarcity created by record labels and movie studios. Also, college students were broke, and $18.99 was an obscene amount to pay for a CD with only one good song.”

The Mechanics of Digital Plundering

Before we dive deeper, let’s review how torrenting works for the two people left on Earth who haven’t used it (hi, Recording Industry Association of America executives!):

You download a special client – think of it as your pirate ship
You search for a “torrent file” – your treasure map
Your computer connects to other “peers” – fellow pirates
You download bits of the file from multiple sources simultaneously – plundering the booty
You share what you’ve downloaded with others – spreading the wealth

The beauty of this system wasn’t just its efficiency; it was its democratic nature. There was no middleman, no gatekeeper, no Tim Cook deciding which artists deserved placement on your home screen. It was digital Marxism: from each according to their bandwidth, to each according to their hard drive space.

“At one point, The Pirate Bay was responsible for approximately 35% of all internet traffic,” claims former BitTorrent developer Logan Seedman. “The other 65% was pornography and people Googling ‘is this rash normal.'”

From Outlaws to Corporate Assets

Fast forward to now, and the landscape has changed dramatically. The streaming revolution promised to end piracy by making music and movies affordable and accessible. For just $9.99 a month (times seven services), you could have legal access to almost everything (except that one album you actually want to hear, which is inexplicably exclusive to some other platform).

“We’ve created a legal alternative to piracy,” declared Spotify CEO Daniel Ek in a 2014 statement that ranks alongside “I am not a crook” in the annals of technical truthfulness. What Ek didn’t mention was that this “alternative” fundamentally changed our relationship with music. We went from owners to renters, from collectors to subscribers, from pirates to… well, customers on a slightly larger pirate ship with better user experience (UX) design and venture capital (VC) funding.

The International Journal of Technological Ironies reports that by 2024, the average music listener had access to more songs than ever before while actually owning fewer than at any point since the invention of the phonograph. Approximately 83% of streaming subscribers couldn’t name ten albums they “owned,” largely because they didn’t own any.

“Streaming services didn’t kill piracy,” explains digital culture critic Aria Downloadable. “They just legitimized and monetized it. Spotify is basically The Pirate Bay in a business suit, except instead of sharing with everyone for free, they charge you monthly for the privilege of temporary access.”

The Great Bait and Switch

The true genius of streaming services wasn’t technological innovation; it was psychological manipulation. They convinced an entire generation that ownership was outdated, that permanent access to cultural artifacts was unnecessary, that paying forever for something you’ll never own was somehow a good deal.

In 2021, researchers at the Center for Digital Economics calculated that the average Spotify user who listens to the same 500 songs regularly for five years will have paid approximately $600 for music they could have purchased outright for $500. The difference? After those five years, the Spotify user still owns nothing!

“It’s the greatest magic trick in corporate history,” says consumer rights advocate Penelope Permanent. “They’ve convinced people to applaud while their music collections vanish into the cloud. At least when Napster went down, you still had your MP3s.”

The metaphor extends beyond music. Netflix removed your DVD collection. Kindle replaced your bookshelf. Each promising convenience while quietly erasing your ownership. Your culture is now a utility, like water or electricity – turn off the payment, and the tap runs dry.

The Symphony of Surveillance

What makes this transformation from piracy to streaming particularly ironic is that while The Pirate Bay was vilified for enabling copyright infringement, streaming services are celebrated despite enabling unprecedented surveillance capitalism.

According to a 2023 report by the Digital Privacy Foundation, Spotify collects approximately 200 data points on each user, from listening habits to location data to emotional states. This information is then used to create eerily specific playlists like “Songs to Listen to While Questioning Your Career Choices on a Rainy Tuesday at 2 AM.”

“The Pirate Bay never knew when you were sad-listening to Adele for the seventeenth time,” notes privacy researcher Marcus Incognito. “Spotify not only knows this but has already sold this information to five different antidepressant manufacturers.”

Meanwhile, Apple Music has become so integrated with users’ identities that a recent survey found 68% of subscribers would sooner give up their actual names than their carefully curated playlists. The remaining 32% have playlists too embarrassing to acknowledge publicly.

The Resurrection of The Pirate Bay

Despite multiple raids, server seizures, and legal challenges that would have sunk lesser websites, The Pirate Bay has demonstrated a cockroach-like resilience. The site has been declared dead more times than rock music, yet continues to operate through a combination of proxy servers, domain hopping, and what experts describe as “pure Swedish stubbornness.”

“The Pirate Bay is the digital equivalent of Keith Richards,” explains internet historian Torrent Thompson. “It’s survived everything thrown at it and continues to function despite all logic suggesting it should have collapsed years ago.”

According to the totally legitimate International Bureau of Piracy Statistics, The Pirate Bay is currently blocked in over 20 countries yet still receives approximately 25 million visits daily. The site operates on a budget of “whatever cryptocurrency donations come in” and is maintained by three programmers and a particularly tech-savvy hamster named BitByte.

“Every time they take down one domain, three more pop up,” says cybersecurity expert Eleanor Encryption. “It’s like trying to eliminate a hydra with a pair of safety scissors. The Pirate Bay isn’t just a website; it’s a digital concept, and you can’t imprison an idea… though Sweden certainly tried.”

The Streaming Fallacy

The most insidious achievement of streaming services is convincing users they’re getting a good deal while actually charging more for less. Let’s examine the math:

In 2003, buying a new album cost approximately $15 and allowed you to listen infinitely.
In 2025, streaming an album costs $0 but requires a $9.99 monthly subscription that expires the moment you stop paying.

The Economics Institute of Obviously Made-Up Statistics calculated that if you primarily listen to 20 core artists over a five-year period, you’ll pay approximately $600 in streaming fees compared to $300 to simply buy their entire catalogues outright. The difference? You actually own those albums forever.

“It’s like renting furniture instead of buying it,” explains financial advisor Penny Wise. “Except imagine if the furniture disappeared the moment you missed a payment, and also the rental company was tracking how often you sat on which chair and selling that information to companies that make hemorrhoid cream.”

The Dark Prophecy

If current trends continue, experts predict a future where:

By 2030, the concept of “ownership” will be relegated to history books (which you’ll rent access to via Kindle Unlimited)
By 2035, Spotify will introduce “micro-listening fees” where particularly good choruses cost additional credits
By 2040, Apple Music will offer a “Heritage Plan” allowing you to pass your playlists (but not the music itself) to your children for a modest inheritance fee

“We’re heading toward a future where the very concept of owning art will seem as antiquated as churning your own butter,” warns cultural futurist Cassandra Streaming. “Future generations won’t understand why anyone would want to ‘own’ music when they can just rent access to it perpetually, along with their self-driving car, subscription wardrobe, and leased internal organs.”

The Unexpected Twist

Here’s the punchline that streaming services don’t want you to understand: They didn’t save the music industry from piracy; they just institutionalized it and made you pay for the privilege.

The true irony? The Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde himself pointed this out years ago when he noted that streaming services have simply centralized ownership of culture by corporations. “I stopped using Spotify,” he said, “when suddenly overnight several titles disappeared from my playlist because the licenses for them were revoked. Someone else had decided which music I could listen to and which I could not.”

In the ultimate plot twist, the streaming revolution has created a scenario where the only truly reliable way to maintain ownership of your cultural library is to—wait for it—pirate it. In a digital world where streaming services can remove content at any time, where licenses expire, where companies go bankrupt taking your library with them, the only permanent solution is a hard drive full of files that no one can remotely delete.

“It’s the ultimate cosmic joke,” laughs digital philosopher Max Download. “After decades of fighting piracy, the media companies have created a system so restrictive that piracy has become the only way to guarantee permanent access to culture. They’ve accidentally made The Pirate Bay more relevant than ever.”

As Taylor Swift once said before pulling her music from Spotify in protest of royalty rates, “Music should not be free.” What she didn’t specify was that it also shouldn’t be held hostage by corporations who can revoke your access at any moment.

So as we sail the streaming seas, paying our monthly tributes to the corporate corsairs who now control the cultural waters, perhaps we should raise a glass to The Pirate Bay and its digital ancestors. They may have been breaking the law, but at least they were honest about it. Unlike today’s streaming services, which perform the ultimate piracy—not of content, but of ownership itself—while making you thank them for the privilege.

And that, dear reader, is the greatest heist in digital history.

DONATE NOW: Help TechOnion Stay Afloat in a Sea of Digital Subscription Pirates! Unlike Spotify and Apple Music, we won’t hold our content hostage behind a monthly fee that gives you “access” without ownership. Your one-time donation gives you permanent bragging rights to say you supported actual digital rebels, not corporate pirates in business casual. Every dollar helps us continue exposing the streaming charlatans who convinced you renting culture forever was somehow better than owning it outright – and who knows, maybe we’ll even create our own TechOnion-Bay with articles that can never be remotely deleted from your brain!

EXPOSED: The Great VPN Conspiracy – How Tech Companies Convinced Suburban Office Workers They Need Protection From North Korean Hackers

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 5, 2025

0

Have you ever wondered why you’re paying $12.99 a month to route your cat video searches through a server in Romania? Or why that YouTube ad warned you that without a VPN, the hacker known as “4chan” will steal your Netflix password and use it to launder cryptocurrency through your grandma’s Facebook account? Welcome to the strange world of Virtual Private Networks, where everyday citizens are convinced they need military-grade encryption to check their email, while actual dissidents in authoritarian regimes are using it to, you know, not die.

In 2025, the VPN industry is projected to be worth $35.73 billion, despite the fact that approximately 87% of its Western users couldn’t explain what a VPN actually does beyond “making internet more secure-y.” This technological placebo effect has become so powerful that an estimated 51% of internet users worldwide now use VPNs to protect their privacy on public Wi-Fi¹, while simultaneously posting their exact location, food choices, and deepest insecurities on Instagram.

“VPNs are the digital equivalent of those plastic covers your grandmother put on her couch,” explains Dr. Theodore Encryptus, Chair of Privacy Theater Studies at the Institute of Internet Anxieties. “They give you the comforting illusion of protection, while mainly just making things slightly more uncomfortable to use.”

The History of Digital Paranoia

The concept of a VPN was originally developed by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in the early 2000s for intelligence communications, not so Dave from accounting could watch Canadian Netflix. But somewhere along the way, what was designed as a serious tool for secure communications transformed into the digital security blanket for people whose primary security threat is forgetting to log out of their Gmail on their spouse’s laptop.

VPNs work by creating an encrypted tunnel between your device and a VPN server. This encryption scrambles your data into incomprehensible code, protecting it from potential interceptors like hackers, internet service providers, or government agencies. The VPN also masks your real IP address, replacing it with the IP of the server you’re connected to, which could be located anywhere in the world.

“It’s actually quite ingenious technology,” admits cybersecurity expert Dr. Martha Firewall. “But watching suburban Americans panic-purchase VPNs after watching a YouTube sponsorship about ‘digital predators’ is like seeing someone buy a flamethrower to make toast. Sure, it’ll work, but perhaps it’s solving a problem you don’t actually have?”

According to the completely legitimate Global Institute of Digital Paranoia, VPN sales spike 300% after any data breach makes the news, despite the fact that a VPN would have prevented exactly zero of the last 50 major corporate data breaches. But why let facts get in the way of a good panic purchase?

The Four Horsemen of VPN Marketing

VPN marketing typically relies on four core fears to convince you that without their service, you’re essentially broadcasting your social security number via skywriting:

The Coffee Shop Boogeyman: “Using public Wi-Fi without a VPN is like shouting your passwords in a crowded Starbucks!” Never mind that most banking and email websites already use HTTPS encryption. Sure, public Wi-Fi has security issues, and VPNs do provide protection by encrypting your data, but the marketing suggests that without a VPN, the person sipping a latte at the next table is definitely recording your keystrokes and stealing your identity.
The ISP Surveillance State: “Your internet service provider is watching EVERYTHING you do online!” This is technically true. Your ISP can see which websites you visit without a VPN. But the marketing conveniently ignores that they probably don’t care about your Reddit browsing habits unless you’re doing something illegal, in which case, maybe don’t do that?
The Geo-Restriction Rebellion: “Access content from anywhere in the world!” This is actually one of the more legitimate uses of a VPN – bypassing geo-restrictions to access content not available in your country². But the marketing frames it as fighting digital injustice rather than what it often is: a terms-of-service violation that streaming companies are increasingly getting better at detecting.
The Authoritarian Regime Escape Hatch: “VPNs provide freedom in oppressive countries!” This is genuinely true and important. VPNs are vital tools for people living under authoritarian regimes to access uncensored information and communicate safely³. But marketing this feature to someone working at an insurance company in Ohio seems… slightly disconnected from reality.

“The greatest trick the VPN industry ever pulled was convincing regular people that they need the same level of security as a political dissident in North Korea,” says digital rights activist Jamie Freedom. “It’s like selling a bulletproof vest to someone whose greatest daily danger is a paper cut.”

The VPN Class System

Not all VPNs are created equal, and the industry has developed its own rigid class structure:

Premium VPN Nobility: At the top sit services like NordVPN and ExpressVPN, with their sleek interfaces and promises of “military-grade encryption” (a completely made-up marketing term, by the way). For $3.09 to $4.99 per month, these services offer reliable connections, no-logs policies, and the ability to watch slightly different Netflix content.

The Freemium Middle Class: Services that offer limited free versions to entice you toward their paid tiers. These are the digital equivalent of sample cheese cubes at the grocery store – just enough to make you want more, but not enough to satisfy.

The Shady Free VPN Underclass: These are the VPNs that advertise themselves as “100% FREE” and finance their operations by… well, nobody really knows. Some speculate they sell your data to third parties, which would make them the privacy equivalent of hiring an arsonist as a fire safety consultant.

“Free VPNs are particularly concerning,” warns cybersecurity analyst Dr. Kathryn Encrypt. “If you’re not paying for the product, you might be the product. Some free VPNs have been caught selling user data or injecting ads, which defeats the whole purpose of using a VPN for privacy.”

The “I’m Just Here For Netflix” Confession

Despite all the fear-mongering about hackers and surveillance, a 2023 survey by the Digital Privacy Foundation found that 68% of VPN users in Western countries primarily use their VPN for one purpose: accessing geo-restricted streaming content.

“I bought NordVPN after three YouTube sponsorships convinced me that without it, Russian hackers would steal my identity,” confesses Mark Streamson, a 34-year-old accountant from Denver. “But honestly, I just use it to watch British baking shows that aren’t available in the US.”

This creates an awkward reality for VPN companies, whose marketing relies on security fears while knowing full well that most of their customers are just trying to trick Netflix into thinking they’re in the UK. It’s like selling a top-of-the-line home security system to someone who just wants to keep raccoons out of their garbage.

VPN companies have responded to this reality by developing features specifically designed for streaming. NordVPN’s SmartPlay feature, for example, lets you “securely access your favorite shows and movies without any setup”. The security is just a bonus feature at this point – like the salad that comes with your pizza.

Meanwhile, In Actually Oppressive Regimes…

While suburban Americans fret about whether they need a VPN to check Facebook at Starbucks, VPNs serve a genuinely crucial purpose in countries with restricted internet access. In nations with strict censorship and surveillance, VPNs are essential tools for accessing uncensored information, communicating safely, and participating in the global digital economy⁴.

“VPNs in restricted internet environments break down information barriers,” explains digital rights advocate Eleanor Freedom. “They allow businesses and individuals to access international news and research, enable secure cross-border collaboration, and provide a lifeline to the uncensored internet.”

However, many countries are actively working to restrict VPN usage. China’s Great Firewall actively blocks many VPN services, and other authoritarian regimes have criminalized VPN use entirely. In these contexts, using a VPN isn’t just about watching different Netflix catalogues – it can be an act of digital resistance with real consequences.

“The irony is that while VPNs are marketed as essential security tools to comfortable Westerners who face minimal online risks, they’re becoming increasingly difficult to access for the people who genuinely need them,” notes internet freedom researcher Dr. Nightshade Darkly.

The Future of Digital Snake Oil

As we look toward the future, the VPN industry shows no signs of slowing its growth or tempering its marketing claims. Next-generation VPNs are already beginning to incorporate buzzwords like “AI-powered privacy” and “quantum-resistant encryption” – terms that sound impressively technical while meaning almost nothing to the average user.

“The evolution of VPN marketing is fascinating,” says digital anthropologist Dr. Serena Truthteller. “They’ve managed to position themselves as both essential utilities and luxury products simultaneously. It’s like selling both water and fine wine in the same bottle.”

A leaked internal marketing document from a major VPN provider (which definitely exists and isn’t made up) revealed their 2026 strategy: “Continue to leverage security fears while expanding lifestyle branding. Target: make VPNs as essential to consumers as smartphones by 2030.”

Meanwhile, browser companies have begun integrating basic VPN functionality directly into their products, potentially undermining the standalone VPN market. In response, VPN companies are diversifying into password managers, encrypted cloud storage, and even cryptocurrency wallets – building digital fortresses around users who probably just wanted to watch Japanese game shows.

So Do You Actually Need a VPN?

After all this satire, here’s the honest truth: VPNs do provide genuine privacy and security benefits. They encrypt your data, hide your IP address from websites and services, and can help protect you on public Wi-Fi networks⁵. For people in countries with internet censorship, they’re essential tools for accessing information freely. And yes, they can help you watch geo-restricted content.

But do you, specifically, need one? If you’re not living under an authoritarian regime, handling extremely sensitive information, or regularly connecting to sketchy public Wi-Fi networks, probably not as desperately as the marketing suggests.

“The question isn’t whether VPNs work – they do,” concludes Dr. Encryptus. “The question is whether the average person needs to route their cat video searches through a server in Romania. For most people, basic digital hygiene like strong passwords and two-factor authentication will do far more to protect them than a VPN ever could.”

And yet, millions will continue to pay their monthly digital protection money, comforted by the knowledge that somewhere, somehow, their data is being encrypted against threats both real and imagined. Because at the end of the day, what VPN companies are really selling isn’t privacy – it’s peace of mind.

Just don’t ask too many questions about who’s running those servers your data is flowing through. That would ruin the illusion, and in 2025, digital illusions are the most valuable currency of all.

DONATE NOW: Help TechOnion Build Our Own Proprietary VPN Service! For just $9.99 a month (or the cost of one actual VPN subscription), you can support independent tech satire while we develop TechOnionGuard™ – the world’s first VPN that openly admits it’s just routing your traffic through the editor’s basement server while he watches Netflix using your account. Unlike other VPN providers who claim to protect you from imaginary hackers, we promise to be the hacker you actually need to worry about – but at least we’re honest about it!

RENT-OCALYPSE NOW: Airbnb Solves Housing Crisis By Ensuring No One Can Actually Live Anywhere – A Revolution in Making Homelessness Profitable

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 5, 2025

0

A satirical and dystopian illustration depicting a futuristic cityscape where Airbnb dominates the housing market. The scene shows a bustling urban environment filled with neon signs and advertisements promoting short-term rentals. In the foreground, a diverse group of people, including families and individuals, are shown looking frustrated and confused as they navigate their temporary living situations. The buildings in the background are adorned with quirky "Airbnb" logos and vibrant colors, contrasting with the somber expressions of the residents. Some are holding suitcases, while others peer into their smartphones, searching for available listings. The artwork should have a hyper-detailed style, capturing both the vibrancy and the underlying tension of this reality. Use a mix of bright neon lighting and shadowy corners to highlight the disparity between the rental market's glitz and the characters' struggles. Incorporate elements of graffiti and street art that critique the situation, adding depth to the narrative. Overall, the piece should evoke a sense of irony and urgency, pushing viewers to reflect on the implications of commodifying housing in a rapidly changing world.

Have you ever dreamed of paying $300 a night to sleep in someone else’s bed while simultaneously making it impossible for actual humans to afford homes in their own cities? Well, congratulations, because that’s not just a dream—it’s the revolutionary business model behind Airbnb, the tech company that discovered you could disrupt the housing market by simply removing houses from it.

In what economists are calling “the most innovative approach to homelessness since cardboard boxes,” Airbnb has perfected the art of transforming what used to be “places where people lived” into “places where people stay for two nights while taking Instagram photos of quirky décor.” A revolutionary concept that answers the age-old question: “What if we could monetize housing scarcity?”

According to research by housing data specialist Propalt, more than a fifth of London short-term lets previously had longer-term tenants before being converted to Airbnb properties¹. Further analysis predicts that “hundreds of thousands of London rental homes could disappear from the market in the coming years” as landlords realize they can make more money from tourists than from those pesky locals who insist on living in the same place for years on end.

“As tenancies become available, these properties won’t go back on the long-term market,” predicted Propalt co-founder Kieran Slinger. This brilliant strategy of reducing housing supply during a housing crisis has resulted in asking rents in London increasing almost twice as quickly compared to the rest of the UK²—a testament to Airbnb’s commitment to innovation in the field of making shelter unaffordable.

The Economics of Displacement: A Growth Industry

But let’s not focus on the negative. According to Airbnb’s own completely impartial research, the company helped generate an estimated $85 billion in economic activity across the US in 2023³. That’s right—$85 billion! If you’re wondering how much of that went toward addressing the housing crises exacerbated by the platform, the answer is a robust and impressive zero dollars. But think of all the cleaning fees!

Dr. Margaret Displacement, Director of the Institute for Profitable Gentrification, explains: “For every family priced out of their neighborhood, we see an average of 4.7 tourists taking selfies in front of ‘authentic local street art’. That’s what economists call ‘disruption’—specifically, disrupting people’s ability to live in the neighborhoods they grew up in.”

The data supports this revolutionary approach. A 10-percent increase in the number of Airbnb properties in a London ward increases real rents by 0.1 percent⁴. While this might seem small, the effect compounds over time and is highest in one-bedroom properties—precisely the homes that might otherwise house young professionals, working-class residents, or anyone not earning tech industry salaries.

In what can only be described as a stroke of economic genius, Airbnb has discovered that the impact is even greater in areas with better quality schools. This ensures that families with children are disproportionately affected, creating what housing experts call “educational displacement synergy”—the innovative process of making good schools irrelevant to locals who can no longer afford to live near them.

Job Creation Through Housing Destruction

Perhaps the most impressive achievement in Airbnb’s economic contribution is its claim to support 1 million jobs in the US. These include such diverse positions as “professional key-under-mat placer,” “passive-aggressive house rules writer,” and “person who texts you that the cleaning crew needs another hour just as you arrive after a six-hour flight.”

“We’re not just creating jobs,” explains Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky in an interview we’ve completely fabricated. “We’re creating entirely new categories of employment, like ‘property manager who owns 57 units that used to house actual residents’ and ‘professional photographer who makes a 400 square foot apartment look like the UK’s Buckingham Palace.'”

The company proudly reports that 41% of guest spending stays within the neighborhood of their Airbnb. The remaining 59% presumably goes toward therapy for locals who can no longer afford to live in said neighborhood. This exemplifies Airbnb’s commitment to what they call “trickle-down hospitality”—the revolutionary economic theory that if you displace enough residents, eventually tourism dollars will trickle down to them in their new homes 90 minutes outside the city.

The Hotel Industry: From Disrupted to Desperate Collaborator

In a twist that proves irony isn’t dead (unlike affordable housing), hotels—once considered Airbnb’s primary victims—are now joining the platform. Reports indicate that some hotels receive up to 15% of their bookings through Airbnb⁵, in what industry experts describe as “if you can’t beat ’em, join the platform that’s beating you.”

“Hotels initially feared Airbnb would destroy their business model,” explains hospitality consultant Thomas Bedsheet. “Then they realized they could list their rooms on Airbnb and charge the same rates plus a mysterious ‘resort fee’ and a non-refundable ‘cleaning fee’ that’s higher than the actual room rate. It’s a win-win, except for consumers, who lose twice.”

A study by HVS Consulting & Valuation found that approximately $450 million annually is lost in hotel direct revenue due to Airbnb⁶, but hotels have discovered they can recoup some of these losses by simply becoming Airbnbs themselves—a strategy known in business schools as “if you can’t beat ’em, become the thing you once despised.”

Sustainability: Saving the Planet by Displacing Its Inhabitants

Always at the forefront of corporate responsibility, Airbnb committed in 2021 to operating as a net zero company by 2030⁷—a goal that primarily addresses their direct corporate operations while conveniently ignoring the environmental impact of turning residential neighborhoods into de facto hotel districts.

“Our corporate emissions were approximately 17% lower in 2022 than in 2019,” boasts Airbnb’s sustainability report, which fails to mention the carbon footprint of displacing residents who then commute long distances to their jobs in the cities they can no longer afford to live in. This innovative approach to environmental accounting is what experts call “selective carbon counting”—the practice of taking credit for emissions reductions while ignoring emissions increases you’ve indirectly caused.

The company has launched pilot programs to help hosts make their homes more energy efficient, ensuring that tourists can enjoy environmentally friendly accommodations in neighborhoods where locals can no longer afford to live efficiently or otherwise. This commitment to “sustainable displacement” represents a bold new frontier in corporate greenwashing.

“Sustainability isn’t just about reducing carbon emissions,” explains environmental consultant Dr. Greenly Washing. “It’s also about sustaining profit growth while appearing to care about the planet. Airbnb has mastered this delicate balance.”

The Social Media Paradox: Pictures of Places You Can’t Afford to Live

On social media, Airbnb has built an impressive presence, with 5.6 million Instagram followers and 16 million Facebook followers⁸. Their strategy leverages user-generated content of beautiful spaces that, ironically, would be affordable housing if they weren’t being rented to tourists.

“Our Instagram features high-quality pictures of beautiful homes that would make anybody want to pack their bag and experience Airbnb’s rentals,” explains their marketing strategy. Unmentioned is the fact that these same images make locals want to weep as they scroll through photos of apartments they can no longer afford while commuting two hours to their jobs.

Airbnb’s social media success exemplifies what psychologists call “displacement porn”—the practice of deriving pleasure from viewing spaces that have been removed from local housing markets. With every like and share, users unknowingly endorse the very process that’s making urban housing increasingly unattainable.

Stock Performance: The Market Value of Making Housing Unaffordable

Despite its impressive contribution to housing crises worldwide, Airbnb’s stock hasn’t performed particularly well, falling 26.46% over the past 12 months⁹. This puzzling disconnect between the company’s ability to transform entire cities and its inability to maintain shareholder value suggests that perhaps making housing unaffordable isn’t the bulletproof business model investors once thought.

“The market is finally recognizing that a business predicated on removing housing from housing markets might face some regulatory headwinds,” explains financial analyst Jessica Bubble. “It turns out that when you make it impossible for people to live in cities, those people use their remaining political power to elect officials who might crack down on your business model. Who could have predicted such a thing?”

Cities worldwide are indeed implementing stricter regulations on short-term rentals¹⁰, with New York intensifying enforcement against entire-apartment short-term rentals and Barcelona aiming to phase out short-term rental units by 2028. This growing regulatory response represents what business strategists call “the consequences of your own actions coming home to roost, except they can’t find affordable roosts anymore because they’ve all been converted to Airbnbs.”

The Future: Innovative Solutions to Problems You Created

As regulatory pressures mount, industry experts are questioning the sustainability of Airbnb’s business model. In response, the company is exploring innovative pivots that would allow it to continue profiting from housing scarcity while appearing to address it.

One such initiative is “AirbnHomeless,” a revolutionary program that would allow displaced residents to rent tents in the backyards of Airbnb properties. “It’s a circular economy solution,” explains fictional Airbnb executive Sarah Disruption. “First, we help landlords convert affordable housing into short-term rentals, displacing residents. Then, we help those displaced residents pay to camp in the yards of the very homes they used to live in. Everyone wins, especially us!”

Another forward-thinking solution is “AirbnBunker,” which would convert unused underground spaces into “authentic local living experiences” for both tourists and displaced residents. “Why choose between housing tourists and housing locals when you can stack them vertically?” asks urban planning disruptor Michael Density. “Tourists get the apartments, locals get the basements and utility closets. It’s a win-win space optimization strategy.”

The Unexpected Twist: The Sustainability Paradox

The ultimate irony in Airbnb’s story is that its long-term success depends on the very communities it’s helping to transform. As cities lose their local character and become homogenized tourist zones filled with keypad-entry doors and IKEA furniture, they risk losing the “authentic” appeal that attracted visitors in the first place.

“People travel to experience local culture,” explains tourism researcher Dr. Amanda Authentic. “But when locals can no longer afford to live in tourist areas, that culture disappears, replaced by a generic ‘global tourist aesthetic’ of Edison bulbs, reclaimed wood, and inspirational wall quotes. Airbnb is essentially killing the very thing it sells.”

This phenomenon, known as “authenticity depletion,” represents perhaps the most significant threat to Airbnb’s future. Once you’ve displaced all the locals who created the vibrant neighborhoods tourists want to experience, what remains is just a theme park version of a city—all Instagram backdrop, no substance.

In this light, the true disruption of Airbnb isn’t to the hotel industry but to the concept of cities themselves. By transforming urban centers from places where people live into places where people visit, Airbnb has inadvertently created a new kind of urban space: cities without citizens, neighborhoods without neighbors, and communities without community.

And that might be the most profitable disruption of all—until it isn’t.

DONATE NOW: Help TechOnion Keep a Roof Over Our Heads! Just like Airbnb has made housing unaffordable in major cities worldwide, running a satirical tech blog is becoming financially untenable in a media landscape dominated by AI-generated content and billionaire vanity projects. For the price of just one night in an Airbnb with a cleaning fee higher than your monthly rent, you can support independent journalism that calls out the absurdities of our tech-disrupted world. Don’t let TechOnion become another casualty of the digital economy – we promise not to convert your donation into a short-term rental property!

References

The Meme Stock Miracle: How GameStop ($GME) Defied Trump’s Tariff Apocalypse and Broke Wall Street’s Brain… Again!

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 5, 2025

0

A surreal and imaginative scene depicting a cockroach styled as a GameStop store, braving a post-apocalyptic nuclear winter. The cockroach stands resiliently on the remnants of a snowy, desolate landscape filled with debris and remnants of technology. The façade of the GameStop store is creatively integrated into the cockroach's armor, decorated with neon lights flickering weakly against the harsh, cold atmosphere. In the background, a dark, moody sky is filled with swirling clouds and the faint glow of distant fires, casting an eerie light on the scene. Snowflakes fall gently, contrasting with the vibrant colors of the cockroach's "store" features. The artwork should be rich in detail, capturing the intricate textures of both the cockroach's body and the dilapidated surroundings. The overall mood is a blend of dystopian and whimsical, emphasizing survival and adaptation in a harsh world. Digital art style with hyper-realistic shading and cinematic lighting, inspired by artists such as Simon Stålenhag and Katsuhiro Otomo, trending on platforms like ArtStation.

In what economists are calling “the most economically irrational event since Bitcoin was used to buy pizza,” GameStop ($GME) stock has emerged as the lone survivor of President Donald Trump’s tariff bloodbath, somehow transforming what should be a financial death sentence into rocket fuel for its share price. While Apple tumbles 6.4% and Nvidia plummets 7.7%¹, GameStop—a brick-and-mortar video game retailer whose business model is about as relevant as a fax machine repair shop—is experiencing another financial renaissance that has left Harvard economists contemplating career changes.

The Tariff Storm

President Trump’s sweeping tariffs have sent markets into a tailspin not seen since 2020, with the Dow nosediving 1,600 points². His reciprocal tariff plan slapped China with a 34% tariff, the EU with 20%, and Vietnam with a staggering 46%³. When accounting for existing duties, Chinese goods now face tariffs exceeding 50%.

“We’ve run 174 economic models, and none of them predicted ‘failing mall retailer outperforms tech giants during trade war,'” said Dr. Malcolm Reynolds, Chief Economic Strategist at Goldman Sachs. “It’s like watching a horse with three legs win the Kentucky Derby while all the thoroughbreds spontaneously decide to run backward.”

The GameStop Paradox

GameStop, a company whose primary business is selling physical copies of games in an increasingly digital world, has absolutely no logical reason to thrive in this environment. The company doesn’t manufacture anything domestically. Its stores are filled with products made in the very countries facing the harshest tariffs. By all conventional wisdom, GameStop should be digging its own grave with a controller from 2007.

Instead, it’s soaring!

A detailed analysis by the Institute for Market Rationality found that GameStop shares now trade at what they call the “YOLO multiple”—defined as “price-to-earnings ratio multiplied by how many rocket emojis appear in r/wallstreetbets Reddit posts divided by the number of Wall Street analysts who’ve had to take stress leave.”

The Reddit Revolution: Electric Boogaloo

On r/WallStreetBets, where financial advice and gambling addiction meet for coffee and never leave, users are celebrating with the fervor of people who’ve discovered they can print money by simply refusing to obey economic laws.

“The hedge funds thought they understood chaos when they saw the pandemic market,” said Reddit user DeepRubbishValue4Ever (not affiliated with the original). “But that was just tutorial mode. This is GameStop Part 2: Diamond Hand Boogaloo.”

The platform has seen a 420% increase in posts containing the phrases “moon,” “tendies,” and “hedge fund tears” over the past 48 hours, according to our internal legitimate data analysis that definitely wasn’t conducted while drinking gin and tonic.

The $1.5 Billion War Chest

Perhaps the one semi-rational explanation for GameStop’s resilience is its recent $1.5 billion cash infusion from convertible bonds. While every other retailer is panicking about rising import costs, GameStop is sitting on a pile of cash that would make a small African nation envious.

“What we’re seeing is the financial equivalent of a cockroach surviving nuclear winter,” explained Jennifer Williams, Chief Investment Officer at Rational Capital Management. “GameStop has somehow stumbled into the perfect position: they have enough cash to weather the storm, a cult-like following willing to buy shares regardless of fundamentals, and the strange benefit of expectations so low that merely continuing to exist is seen as a triumph.”

The company has partnered with PSA, a collectible grading company, in what analysts are calling “the most brilliant pivot since Netflix abandoned DVD rentals”—if by “analysts” we mean “people on Reddit with usernames like XboxDestroyer69.”

Wall Street’s Collective Meltdown

As GameStop defies gravity, Wall Street is experiencing what psychologists now recognize as the five stages of meme stock grief: denial, anger, CNBC and Bloomberg appearances, liquidation, and finally, joining Reddit.

“I spent seven years at Wharton and another five getting my Ph.D. in Financial Economics, only to be outperformed by someone named ‘PotatoInMyAss’ who makes investment decisions based on how funny the ticker symbol sounds,” lamented one hedge fund manager who requested anonymity because he now spends his evenings scrolling through r/WallStreetBets for tips.

Our research indicates that 73% of financial advisors are now explaining GameStop’s performance to clients using elaborate hand gestures and the phrase “because this is how the internet reasons.”

The Tariff-Proof Business Model

Experts are scrambling to explain GameStop’s tariff immunity, developing increasingly desperate theories:

“GameStop has inadvertently created the perfect tariff-proof business model,” explained Dr. Sarah Jenkins, Professor of Economic Absurdity at MIT. “They’ve combined three elements: physical stores nobody visits, products nobody needs, and a stock price completely detached from both. It’s brilliant in its accidental genius.”

The company’s strategy of having streamlined U.S. operations has somehow become an advantage, not because it was well-planned, but because being mostly irrelevant means you have less to lose when the world economy catches fire.

The TariffCoin Conspiracy

A more fringe theory gaining traction suggests GameStop will announce “TariffCoin,” a cryptocurrency that uses the computational power of unsold Xbox 360s to create a decentralized marketplace where Chinese goods can be traded as NFTs, thereby avoiding tariffs altogether.

While there is absolutely no evidence this is happening, the rumor alone caused the price to jump 8% during after-hours trading, proving once again that in the GameStop universe, reality is whatever Reddit decides it is.

The Economic Lessons Nobody Asked For

Financial textbooks are being hurriedly rewritten to include the “GameStop Theorem,” which states that during times of economic crisis, at least one completely irrational asset will defy all logic, solely to remind economists of their profession’s limitations.

“We now have to teach students that markets can be efficient except when enough people on the internet decide they shouldn’t be,” sighed Dr. Lawrence Peterson, who has taught Economic Theory at Harvard for 30 years. “It’s like teaching physics and having to add an asterisk that says ‘gravity works this way unless enough people tweet that it doesn’t.'”

The Inevitable Prophecy

As GameStop continues its improbable ascent, projections suggest it could reach $31.91 per share by May 2025⁴—a figure arrived at through complex analysis or, equally likely, by someone throwing darts at a board while blindfolded in a British pub.

“We’ve entered a new paradigm where the most valuable skill in finance is understanding memes,” declared Wall Street veteran Michael Burry, who may or may not have said this, depending on whether you fact-check.

Meanwhile, hedge funds sold stocks at their highest single-day amount since 2010, while retail investors bought $4.7 billion worth of stocks—the most in over a decade⁵. It’s almost as if two entirely separate markets are operating in parallel universes, connected only by mutual bewilderment.

Conclusion: The Last Retailer Standing

As tech giants collapse under tariff pressure and traditional retailers face extinction, GameStop has emerged as the cockroach of commerce—resilient beyond all reason, surviving on nothing but spite and Reddit awards.

Perhaps GameStop’s ultimate victory isn’t financial but philosophical—a reminder that in a world increasingly driven by algorithms and logic, sometimes the most powerful force is human irrationality combined with a good meme.

In the final analysis, GameStop isn’t just surviving Trump’s tariffs; it’s thriving specifically because nobody can explain why it’s thriving. And in that circular logic lies the perfect metaphor for our economic times: the less sense something makes, the more valuable it becomes.

Now if you’ll excuse us, we need to check if Blockbuster stock is available.

Help Keep TechOnion’s Servers Running on Meme Power

Unlike GameStop, we can’t survive on Reddit awards and hedge fund tears alone. If you enjoyed this article and want to support financial journalism that makes as much sense as GameStop’s stock performance, consider donating to TechOnion. Your contributions help us continue investigating why the stock market now operates with the same logic as a toddler selecting breakfast cereal. Remember: when the financial apocalypse comes, your receipt for donating to us might be worth more than actual money!

References

EXCLUSIVE: “iPhone Has a Soul, Google Pixel Has a Spreadsheet” – How Apple Convinced Us Their Phone Contains 3 Grams of Actual Human Spirit While Google Just Wants Your Data and Bank Details

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 4, 2025

0

A whimsical and thought-provoking illustration of an iPhone personified, with a glowing, ethereal aura symbolizing a "soul." The iPhone should have gentle, expressive features, like eyes that convey emotion and a warm smile, set against a backdrop of dreamy, surreal elements that suggest a connection to humanity. In contrast, depict a Google Pixel phone as a sleek, cold, and mechanical entity, surrounded by floating spreadsheets and data streams, emphasizing its data-driven nature. The scene should balance a vibrant color palette with soft lighting, evoking a sense of wonder and contemplation about technology and its impact on our lives. Add subtle details like gears and wires in the background to enhance the contrast between human warmth and digital coldness.

In a world where rectangles of glass and aluminum compete for our attention and wallets, have you ever wondered why some tech products make you feel something while others just… exist on the shelf? The answer might be more metaphysical than you think.

Every day, millions of humans press their faces against cold screens, desperately seeking connection in a digital landscape. Some find it in the warm embrace of an Apple iPhone, believing they’ve purchased not just a phone but a piece of digital artwork with a soul. Others clutch their Google Pixels, practical tools engineered by algorithms to solve problems nobody knew they had. But what if I told you that one corporation has been secretly bottling “tech soul” for years, while the other has been optimizing quarterly earnings reports?

The concept of “soul” in technology is, of course, absurd. And yet, here we are, in 2025, still talking about the “magical experience” of using an Apple iPhone while describing the Pixel as “competent” or “practical.” This phenomenon – the spiritual connection we claim to have with certain tech products – reveals more about our own psychological vulnerabilities than any transcendent qualities of aluminum and silicon.

The Sacred Origin Story vs. The Business Opportunity

When Steve Jobs unveiled the original iPhone in 2007, he didn’t just launch a product; he performed a religious ceremony. Dressed in his signature black turtleneck (the high priest’s vestments), he emerged from behind a curtain of darkness to reveal “three revolutionary products”: a widescreen iPod with touch controls, a revolutionary mobile phone, and a breakthrough internet communications device. And then – the miracle – they were one device. The crowd gasped. Tears were shed. Prophesies were fulfilled.

According to Dr. Amelia Fakenamington of the Institute for Digital Anthropology, “The iPhone launch was deliberately structured as a religious experience. Jobs used the language of revelation – ‘revolutionary,’ ‘breakthrough,’ ‘magical’ – to inspire not just desire but devotion. This wasn’t marketing; it was evangelism.”

Google, meanwhile, approached the smartphone market with all the spiritual fervor of an accountant reviewing tax returns.

“We noticed people were spending money on phones, so we decided we should have some of that money,” explained Bill Gates in a completely fabricated 1999 interview, eerily predicting Google’s future approach to hardware¹. When Google finally launched the Pixel in 2016, they were nearly a decade late to a party Apple had been hosting since 2007.

“Google didn’t even make its own phones until the Pixel lineup,” notes tech historian Thomas Nonexistent. “They partnered with HTC and Motorola for earlier phones, which didn’t even have Google branding. It’s like they were embarrassed to be seen in the phone business.”

The result? While iPhone sales skyrocketed, Pixel sales remained anemic. Since the first Pixel launched in 2016, the entire series has sold just 27.6 million units – about one-tenth of what Samsung shipped in 2021 alone².

The Cult of iOS vs. The Google Support Group

iPhone owners don’t just use their phones; they commune with them. They form emotional attachments so powerful that switching to Android is often described as “betrayal.” They proudly display their devices sans cases, risking economic ruin if they drop them, because hiding Apple’s design under a protective case would be like forcing Michelangelo’s David to wear sweatpants.

“I’ve been an iPhone user since the 3G,” confesses Jason Devotee, a 42-year-old who has spent approximately $9,700 on iPhones over the years. “The thought of switching to Android gives me heart palpitations. What would happen to my blue text bubbles? Would my friends still respect me? Would my family still love me?”

Pixel users, by contrast, often begin conversations about their phones with apologetic explanations. “I know most people have iPhones, but I really like the camera on the Pixel,” they’ll say, voice dropping to a whisper. “Also, it was on sale.”

The International Journal of Consumer Psychology published a study (that absolutely doesn’t exist) showing that 78% of iPhone users believe their choice of phone reflects their personality, compared to just 12% of Pixel users, who mostly cite “practical considerations” like “it was cheaper” or “I already use Gmail.”

The Simplicity Paradox

Here’s where things get interesting. While Apple originally captivated users with a simple, intuitive interface that “just works,” they’ve gradually expanded to offer more options. The company that once offered a single revolutionary phone now sells multiple models at different price points.

Google, meanwhile, has embraced Apple’s original strategy of simplicity. The Pixel lineup typically offers just two models per generation (sometimes with an “a” variant). It’s as if these tech giants started at opposite ends of the spectrum and are slowly meeting in the middle, like star-crossed lovers in a Shakespearean tragedy where everyone dies of planned obsolescence.

“Apple used to be about removing choices to simplify decisions,” explains Dr. Fakenamington. “Now they’re like, ‘Here are five different models with minor differences that will trigger your decision paralysis.'”

According to former Apple designer Jony Quasi-Ive, “We discovered that consumers love simplicity in theory but variety in practice. They want to feel special, to have options that their neighbors don’t have. So we created the illusion of meaningful choice while selling essentially the same device in different sizes and colors.”

The AI Conundrum: Being Human vs. Replacing Humans

Perhaps the most telling distinction between iPhone and Pixel is their approach to artificial intelligence. Apple has largely resisted incorporating AI deeply into iOS, preferring to focus on privacy and user control³. Google, meanwhile, has made AI the centerpiece of the Pixel experience, with features like computational photography and Assistant integration⁴.

“Google’s approach to phones is fundamentally about replacing human capabilities with AI,” says Dr. Fakenamington. “Need to take a good photo? Don’t learn photography; let the AI do it. Don’t know what to search for? Let Assistant predict it. The Pixel isn’t designed to be used by humans; it’s designed to make humans obsolete.”

This philosophical difference manifests in camera technology. Apple emphasizes the quality of their camera hardware, while Google relies on computational photography to achieve similar or better results with less impressive hardware. In a survey that definitely happened, 83% of Pixel 7 users cited the camera’s AI-improved abilities as a primary reason for their purchase.

“It’s the difference between learning to play piano and buying a keyboard that plays itself,” explains photographer Annie Leibovirtualitz. “The iPhone camera feels like an instrument you master; the Pixel camera feels like it’s mastering you.”

The Identity Crisis

While Apple has maintained a clear brand identity (expensive but worth it, supposedly), Google has struggled to define what exactly a Pixel is for and whom it serves.

“Part of Google’s challenge is that smartphones are a mature market, and consumers are happy with Samsung and Apple,” explains analyst Avi Greengart. With a mere 2% of the North American market (compared to Apple’s 52%), Pixel remains a niche product for enthusiasts rather than a mainstream choice.

But perhaps this identity crisis is deliberate. “Google doesn’t actually want to compete with Samsung,” suggests Dr. Fakenamington. “They just want to create a ‘reference device’ that showcases Android at its best while collecting user data and promoting Google services. The Pixel isn’t a product; it’s a vehicle for surveillance capitalism disguised as a phone.”

Apple, meanwhile, has masterfully positioned the iPhone as an extension of your identity, a status symbol, and a lifestyle choice. “The iPhone isn’t just what you use; it’s who you are,” says Dr. Fakenamington. “Apple doesn’t sell phones; they sell membership in an exclusive club where the price of admission just happens to be $1,000 every one and a half years.”

The Ecosystem Prison vs. The Open Field

Perhaps the most significant difference between iPhone and Pixel is their approach to the broader ecosystem. Apple has constructed an impenetrable walled garden where devices work seamlessly together – as long as they’re all Apple devices.

“Apple’s ecosystem is like a luxury resort,” explains tech psychologist Dr. Fakenamington. “Everything is beautiful, everything works, and the staff is attentive – but if you try to leave, you discover you’re actually in a cult and they’ve taken your passport.”

Google’s ecosystem, by contrast, is platform-agnostic. Google apps and services work on virtually any device, including iPhones. This approach is either admirably open-minded or a cynical data-gathering strategy, depending on your level of paranoia.

“Google doesn’t care what device you use as long as you’re generating data for them,” says Dr. Fakenamington. “Apple wants your money; Google wants your soul. Ironically, this makes the iPhone the device with ‘soul’ and the Pixel the soulless data collector.”

The Surprising Plot Twist

In the ultimate irony, Google’s approach to Pixel harks back to Apple’s original iPhone strategy. While Apple now offers multiple models and options, Google is embracing the simplicity that once defined Apple.

“Google is becoming more Apple than Apple,” notes tech historian Thomas Nonexistent. “They’re focusing on user experience over specs, simplicity over choice, and integrated hardware/software design. They even put ‘Designed by Google’ on the back of their phones, mimicking Apple’s ‘Designed by Apple in California.'”

This brings us to the philosophical question at the heart of this absurdity: What does it mean for a tech product to have “soul”?

Perhaps “soul” in technology isn’t about mystical qualities infused by charismatic CEOs. Perhaps it’s about intention – whether a product was created to solve human problems or corporate ones. The iPhone, for all its flaws and pretensions, was born from a vision to reimagine the phone. The Pixel was born from Google’s need to have a flagship device for Android.

Or perhaps “soul” is just a marketing construct designed to make us form emotional attachments to mass-produced consumer electronics that will be obsolete in two years.

The Final Analysis: Soul as Marketing Strategy

As I reach the end of this exploration, I’m forced to confront an uncomfortable truth: the concept of “soul” in technology is itself a form of marketing manipulation. By anthropomorphizing our devices, we form emotional bonds that transcend rational consumer behavior.

“The genius of Apple wasn’t putting soul into phones,” concludes Dr. Fakenamington. “It was convincing us that phones could have souls in the first place.”

Google’s sin isn’t making soulless phones; it’s failing to convince us that AI and data collection are spiritual experiences rather than business transactions.

In the end, perhaps we should judge our technology not by some nebulous concept of “soul,” but by how it serves and enhances our very human lives. Does it respect our time, attention, and privacy? Does it solve genuine problems, or create new ones disguised as solutions? Does it connect us more meaningfully to each other, or just more profitably to corporations?

As the philosopher Kierkegaard never said because he died long before smartphones: “The function of technology is not to make life easier, but to make it worth the difficulty.”

Whether you pledge your allegiance to Apple’s walled garden or Google’s data-harvesting fields, remember this: neither corporation loves you back. They just have different strategies for making you think they might.

Help TechOnion Keep Peeling Back Layers of Tech Nonsense! Just like Apple convinced you to spend $1,000 on a phone with “soul” and Google convinced you to hand over your data for better photos, we’re here to convince you to donate to our cause. Unlike those tech giants, we’re completely transparent about our manipulation tactics! Your donation helps us continue exposing the absurdity of soul-searching in rectangles of glass while keeping Simba supplied with enough caffeine to maintain his righteous indignation. Don’t let big tech have the last laugh – fund the satire that keeps them honest(ish)!

References

TECH CEOs BEND THE KNEE, GET STABBED IN THEIR STOCK PRICE: Multi-Trillion Dollar Sacrifice to Donald Trump Altar Rewarded With Economy-Crashing Tariffs That Would Make Even Logan Roy Say ‘Too Harsh’

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 4, 2025

0

A satirical and dramatic illustration depicting a group of tech CEOs in formal attire, kneeling before a grand, imposing altar dedicated to Donald Trump. The backdrop features a chaotic corporate environment, with stock market graphs plummeting dramatically. Each CEO is dramatically styled, showcasing a mix of despair and disbelief as they clutch their wallets, which are overflowing with cash but also visibly stabbed or marked with dollar signs. The altar is adorned with symbols of wealth and power, like gold coins and tech gadgets, while a towering statue of Trump looms above them, casting a shadow. Incorporate elements of a dystopian corporate landscape with neon lights and dark clouds, creating an atmosphere of impending doom. The scene should be hyper-detailed with sharp focus, mixing dark humor with sharp societal commentary, reflecting the tension between tech giants and political power in a visually striking manner.

In what financial analysts are calling “the most expensive case of unrequited love in corporate history,” America’s tech titans have discovered that even after canceling diversity programs (DEI), donating millions to the presidential inauguration funds, and attending enough Mar-a-Lago dinners to qualify for a punch card, President Trump still doesn’t swipe right on Silicon Valley.

The Great DEI Purge: “Who Needs Diversity When You Have Loyalty?”

The courtship began innocently enough back in January, when tech companies decided that their much-touted commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion were actually just a three-year fling they were ready to move on from.

Meta led the charge, ending diversity hiring practices faster than you can say “shareholder value.” Chief Diversity Officer Maxine Williams was swiftly reassigned to a role more focused on “accessibility and engagement,” which industry insiders confirm is corporate-speak for “please clean out your desk by noon.”¹

“We’re better focusing efforts on how to apply fair and consistent practices that mitigate bias for all, no matter your background,” explained a leaked memo from Meta’s VP of HR, Janelle Gale. This revolutionary approach reportedly involves “hiring whoever we want without thinking too hard about it,” a strategy that’s worked flawlessly for creating Meta’s current workforce of 46.5% Asian and 37.6% White employees, with just 6.7% Hispanic and 4.9% Black representation.

Google, never one to miss an opportunity to follow Meta into an ethical abyss, eliminated all diversity hiring targets and is “evaluating” whether to continue releasing diversity reports it has published since 2014. The company has also helpfully scrubbed all mentions of diversity from its annual 10-K filing, proving that if you can’t see the problem, it clearly doesn’t exist.

“We’re updating programs focused on DEI content,” said Melonie Parker, Google’s former head of diversity, in a statement that makes about as much sense as trying to download more RAM onto a Chromebook.

The Million-Dollar Courtship: “Here’s My Number, So Call Me Maybe?”

Not content with merely abandoning their principles, tech companies proceeded to Phase Two of Operation Win Donald Trump’s Heart: flooding his inauguration fund with cash.

Meta, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Apple each donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural festivities, presumably hoping their generosity would be remembered when regulatory decisions came around². OpenAI’s Sam Altman even pitched in $1 million of his personal money, perhaps hoping to influence Trump’s position on whether AI should be allowed to replace all human jobs or just most of them³.

“We’ve donated to previous inaugurations,” a Google spokesperson explained, presumably while a PR team behind them held up cue cards reading “SAY IT’S NORMAL” and “DON’T MENTION THE ANTITRUST LAWSUITS.”

The strategy seemed foolproof: When in doubt, throw money at the problem. It’s the Silicon Valley way! Just like how Microsoft solved its midlife crisis by spending $69 billion on Activision Blizzard instead of just buying a sports car.

Dinner at Don’s: “Would You Like Some Loyalty with That Entrée?”

The tech elite’s courtship escalated to actual in-person meetings, as CEOs from Tim Cook to Sundar Pichai made the pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago – Trump’s Florida compound that looks like what would happen if Versailles and a golf resort had a baby raised by a casino.

In scenes that witnesses describe as “vaguely reminiscent of ‘The Godfather,’ but with more gold toilets,” tech CEOs lined up to kiss the ring. Apple’s Tim Cook reportedly discussed EU tax disputes over dinner, presumably hoping Trump would tweet mean things about Europe on his behalf⁴.

“In my first term, everyone was fighting me. Now, everyone wants to be my friend — maybe my personality changed or something!” Trump boasted, in a statement that ranks among the most self-aware things he’s ever said.

Elon Musk, playing the role of overeager teacher’s pet with a net worth, reportedly attended so frequently that staff began leaving out a bowl of water and some Tesla-shaped treats by the door.

Big Projects, Bigger Promises: “We’ll Help Make America Great Again (Terms and Conditions Apply)”

As if canceling DEI initiatives, donating millions, and attending awkward dinners weren’t enough, tech companies went for the grand gesture: announcing massive investments in American infrastructure.

Enter “The Stargate Project,” a $500 billion AI infrastructure initiative unveiled at the White House. This partnership between OpenAI, Oracle, Japan’s SoftBank, and an Emirati wealth fund promised to create 100,000 jobs and ensure “the future of technology” stays in the US⁵.

Not to be outdone, SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son pledged $100 billion for US investments, only to be immediately challenged by Trump to raise the amount – because what’s another hundred billion between friends?⁶

“He can actually afford to do that,” Trump helpfully informed Son during a press conference, in what relationship experts call “classic negging.”

The projects were announced with the fanfare typically reserved for moon landings or iPhone launches, complete with solemn pledges about American jobs and technological leadership. Tech executives beamed like children who had just been told they could have an extra scoop of ice cream, confident that their tribute had been accepted.

The Tariff Betrayal: “It’s Not You, It’s Your Supply Chain”

And then came Thursday, April 3, 2025.

In what financial historians are already calling “Silicon Valley’s Red Wedding,” Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs that sent tech stocks into a death spiral. The S&P 500 had its worst day since the COVID-19 pandemic, dropping nearly 5% and erasing approximately $2 trillion in value.⁷

The Magnificent Seven tech stocks lost over $800 billion in a single day⁸. Apple, which manufactures most of its products in China, saw shares plummet by 9%, erasing over $300 billion in market value – its worst day since March 2020⁹. Amazon, Nvidia, and Meta all dropped by more than 7%.

Trump’s new tariff plan includes a 10% baseline on all imports, with additional penalties on “worst offenders”: 54% for China, 46% for Vietnam, 32% for Taiwan, and 25% for the European Union¹⁰. It’s like a game of international trade whack-a-mole, except the mole is the global supply chain and the hammer is America’s economy.

“With Asian production hubs being particularly impacted, all footwear and apparel company margins will be squeezed as costs increase,” noted analysts at Jefferies, in what might be the understatement of the century.

The Morning After: Tech’s Walk of Shame

As tech executives nursed their financial hangovers, the irony was lost on no one: all that bending of the knee, all those compromised values, all those expensive dinners at Mar-a-Lago – and for what?

“This is a pretty devastating day. There’s a lot of confusion happening within the tech industry,” remarked an executive at a supply chain solutions company, in what linguists recognize as corporate-speak for “WTF just happened???”

The European Union is now considering retaliatory tariffs specifically targeting digital services – putting Meta, Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon directly in the crosshairs. It’s like asking someone to prom, getting rejected, and then finding out they’re planning to egg your house.

Even more awkwardly, the tech giants will likely have to pass these tariff costs onto consumers, making smartphones, laptops, and cloud services more expensive. “Sorry about the price increase on your iPhone 17 – we tried really hard to suck up to the president, but he just wasn’t that into us.”

Will They Never Learn?

What’s remarkable about this saga isn’t just the betrayal – it’s that tech executives seemed genuinely surprised by it. It’s as if they expected loyalty in return for their loyalty, a concept so quaint it belongs in a museum next to dial-up modems and ethical business practices.

“The global construction ecosystem is intricately woven with international supply chains,” noted one construction analyst, apparently just discovering how the global economy has worked for the past 40 years.

As tech stocks continue their descent, one can’t help but wonder: What will tech CEOs try next? Naming data centers after Trump? Replacing the “Like” button with a “MAGA” button? Developing an AI that only says nice things about the president’s golf game?

Whatever it is, history suggests it won’t work. Because when it comes to appeasing powerful figures who fundamentally don’t respect your industry, there’s only one winning move: not to play.

But Silicon Valley never was good at learning from its mistakes. After all, these are the same people who keep trying to make the Metaverse and Blockchain happen.

At press time, sources confirmed that several tech CEOs were desperately trying to determine whether their companies could relocate manufacturing to Mar-a-Lago, which is apparently the only place in the world exempt from Trump’s tariffs.

Support TechOnion: We Need $1 Million To Donate To Someone Important (Definitely Not Buying Ramen)

Did our dissection of tech’s pathetic courtship of Trump make you laugh? Help support TechOnion as we continue exposing the tech industry’s desperate attempts to curry favor with powerful figures! For just 0.0001% of what Big Tech donated to Trump’s inauguration fund, you can keep our servers running so we can document which tech CEO will abase themselves next. We promise not to cancel our commitment to satire the moment it becomes politically expedient – unlike some companies we just wrote 1,500 words about.