[voidz]

Wired, trying to get you to click through their nonsense content (I call it nontent) because clicks on ads equal money, and like all media nowadays they make it attractive to the curious reader by using hyperboles and exaggerations, and by focusing on panic, fear and (commonly but not in this case) conflict. It's the stuff that sells.

But there's more: as a free bonus, without qualms they tell you how hilarious and foolish "the Internet responds" (yeah right) to trivial stuff like the BBC being down. And these people have the audacity to call themselves journalists.

They should be ashamed of themselves and my suggestion is: don't read this stuff when even the title is this obviously clickbaity. They have been spoiled enough, the quality is abhorrent. Best thing you can do in my opinion is adblock, adblock, adblock.

[J_Darnley]

It just what "news" or "content" is these days--repeating what others said on twitter. Their conundrum is do they post what little might be said sooner to be the first or wait a little for shit to really kick off. I will admit that I went to see if there was an archive of this story (there is) before posting (and I looked at it).

> Best thing you can do in my opinion is adblock, adblock, adblock.

I already do. No whitelisting, no exceptions, and I keep an eye out for sponsored posts and native advertising.

[bshimmin]

I'm not 100% confident "articles" like this are even written by humans.