A website has been making the rounds over the past few days, called It’s This for That. It’s one of those simple, satirical text generators, of which there are dozens by now. This one target’s today’s technology startups, answering the question, “Wait, what does your startup do?” with a simple this-meets-that answer. Some examples:

SO, BASICALLY, IT’S LIKE A
SOCIAL GAME
FOR
CHINESE TAKE-OUT!

SO, BASICALLY, IT’S LIKE A
FLICKR
FOR
RESTROOMS!

SO, BASICALLY, IT’S LIKE A
GOOGLE ANALYTICS
FOR
BARISTAS!

These generators are often amusing enough for a diversion. But I was struck this time by how plausible most of the concepts seemed. I found myself muttering, “yeah, there’s a startup like that,” or “I wouldn’t be surprised to read about that one getting funded.” I wondered for a moment if It’s This for That was a particularly adept example, but of course it’s no different from any other generator: it takes a word from bucket A and matches it with another term from bucket B.

Then it hit me: it’s not that the generator is better at matching reality, but that reality has become absurd enough to be more likely to fit the results of the generator. A kind of inflationary absurdity, in which the value of reasonableness has fallen. An Amazon for adult dancers? Why not? Salesforce.com for collegiate Jewish women? Sure! An amber alert system for parking tickets? It’ll be on TechCrunch before you can log into your social game for highway accidents!

published August 31, 2010

Comments

  1. Jesse Fuchs

    We’re living in the future, and it’s neither utopian or dystopianâ??just surtopian.

  2. Jacob haug

    I know I’m commenting on this kinda late (in internet time anyways) but I couldn’t resist. I don’t disagree with your analysis, but what came to me was that these fictional yet absurdly plausible. Ideas have a lot in common with R.L products. In the way that it’s really just repackaging and presenting them differently. That’s why so many seem plausible, just take an already existing

    site or service and aim it at a different audience. I know this explanation can’t be blanketed over all of the results but it seems to have a kernel of truth about it to me.