Smosh Reads Reddit Stories

Jokes On Us | Reading Reddit Stories

January 17, 2026

Key Takeaways Copied to clipboard!

  • The theme of the *Smosh Reads Reddit Stories* episode "Jokes On Us | Reading Reddit Stories" is pranks, which the hosts immediately note often involve mean or horrible actions on Reddit. 
  • The first story involved a man who pranked his friends by pretending to be an 'Appletarian' for three weeks, leading to an intervention and his girlfriend breaking up with him. 
  • The hosts strongly condemned a story where a man faked his own death for two weeks as a prank, viewing it as an irreparable breach of trust and sociopathic behavior, contrasting sharply with the relatively harmless 'Appletarian' prank. 
  • The hosts heavily debate whether the Starbucks prankster who asked for "I need more head" was genuinely a 13-year-old or an adult pretending to be one, leaning toward the latter due to the writing style and nature of the prank. 
  • The consensus on the Starbucks prank is that while the joke itself was funny in theory, executing it on a service worker without knowing their situation constitutes inconsiderate behavior and potential sexual harassment. 
  • The final story about the man who laughed at his sister-in-law's divorce announcement on April 1st is deemed the most painful prank reaction, highlighting the danger of making serious announcements on April Fool's Day. 

Segments

Podcast Intro and Prank Setup
Copied to clipboard!
(00:00:00)
  • Key Takeaway: The episode of Smosh Reads Reddit Stories titled “Jokes On Us | Reading Reddit Stories” centers around Reddit stories themed around pranks.
  • Summary: The episode opens with advertisements for Rocket Money and Shopify before the hosts initiate a prank on the audience by pretending the show was starting without guests. Arasha was revealed to have a whoopee cushion taped to her, which failed to produce sound when she sat down, despite a rehearsal.
Appletarian Prank Story Analysis
Copied to clipboard!
(00:05:07)
  • Key Takeaway: Pretending to adhere to a restrictive, internet-derived diet like ‘Appletarian’ for three weeks can lead to serious real-world consequences, including relationship termination.
  • Summary: The first story detailed a man who pranked friends by only eating apple-derived foods for three weeks, culminating in an intervention where he revealed the joke, leading to his girlfriend breaking up with him over prior embarrassment. The hosts noted that while the commitment was impressive, the payoff was nonexistent in a real-life context, unlike content creation.
Sponsor Reads and Financial Segments
Copied to clipboard!
(00:13:41)
  • Key Takeaway: Rocket Money users save an average of $378 annually by canceling unused subscriptions, while Hungry Root offers 40% off the first box plus a free item for life with a specific code.
  • Summary: The show included multiple sponsor reads for Rocket Money, emphasizing savings on forgotten subscriptions, and for Hungry Root, promoting healthy meal planning delivery. Mazda was also advertised, highlighting the CX-90’s three-row seating and safety features.
Beeping Device Torture Prank
Copied to clipboard!
(00:16:30)
  • Key Takeaway: Hiding a beeping Arduino board in a partner’s closet for days while they are stressed and actively complaining about it constitutes psychological warfare and a massive breach of trust.
  • Summary: The second story involved a woman whose boyfriend planted a beeping device in her closet during the stressful first week of her new job, gaslighting her concerns until she discovered the source. The hosts unanimously agreed she was not overreacting, labeling the boyfriend’s actions as abusive and terrifying, especially since he continued to tease her after being confronted.
Faking Death Prank Fallout
Copied to clipboard!
(00:29:48)
  • Key Takeaway: Faking one’s own death for two weeks to test a partner’s love is an act of extreme cruelty that creates genuine, lasting trauma, making relationship recovery highly improbable.
  • Summary: The third story featured a man who faked his death for two weeks, causing his four-year girlfriend to grieve intensely before he revealed it was a prank, leaving him afraid she would leave. The hosts asserted that death is not a subject for pranks and that the resulting trauma is deeply embedded, meaning the relationship is likely irreparably ruined despite the prankster seeking therapy.
Starbucks Name Joke Backfires
Copied to clipboard!
(00:47:37)
  • Key Takeaway: Using deliberately offensive or suggestive names like ‘A Need More Head’ at a service counter, even if intended as a harmless joke, can result in the employee retaliating by throwing the drink.
  • Summary: The final story detailed a customer who used a suggestive name joke on a Starbucks barista, who then reacted by throwing the prepared drink across the room onto the customer’s Vans. The customer felt entitled to a replacement drink because he paid, but the hosts sided with the barista’s reaction to the inappropriate joke.
Starbucks Prank Age Debate
Copied to clipboard!
(00:50:30)
  • Key Takeaway: The hosts analyze the Starbucks prank, focusing on the perceived maturity of the OP’s writing versus their claimed age of 13.
  • Summary: The discussion centers on the OP’s claim of being 13 when ordering a drink and asking for “I need more head,” which the hosts find inconsistent with typical 13-year-old communication styles. They note the OP’s use of terms like “classic dirty name joke” and concern over money as indicators of an older writer. The segment concludes with the hosts strongly doubting the OP’s stated age.
Sexual Harassment in Pranks
Copied to clipboard!
(00:57:22)
  • Key Takeaway: Reddit comments overwhelmingly classified the Starbucks prank as sexual harassment directed at a service worker, regardless of the prankster’s age.
  • Summary: Commenters labeled the act as sexual harassment, emphasizing that forcing a service worker to say a sexually explicit phrase is unacceptable workplace behavior. The hosts acknowledge that while the prankster felt bad, the action was inherently wrong because it targeted a stranger who was likely already stressed. The segment reinforces the idea that pranks require consent or at least harmlessness from all parties involved.
Divorce Announcement Prank Fallout
Copied to clipboard!
(01:05:27)
  • Key Takeaway: The OP who laughed at a family divorce announcement on April 1st is deemed the ‘jester’ compared to the cheating wife, who is the true ‘villain’ of the situation.
  • Summary: The final story details a man who ruined a serious family meeting by assuming a divorce announcement was an elaborate April Fool’s gag, leading to his mother-in-law leaving in hysterics. The hosts agree that while the OP’s reaction was insensitive, the cheating wife who planned to leave her husband for her affair partner is the most culpable party. The OP later revealed the story went viral, causing further embarrassment.