Rhizome explains jodi as "the web site that makes you wonder if your computer is broken". Jodi projects aren't harmful, they just seem to be. They provide users with the sensation of computer disaster, but never do any actual damage. Jodi may make a user believe that she's contracted a virus or that her computer is ruined, but it's all smoke and mirrors.

oss was conceived as an application that would be invoked when an oss cd was inserted into a computer, but it is also automatically downloaded to a computer when the oss website is visited. The oss application makes it seem like a computer is crashing in a terrible and inexplicable way. Once it's been launched, the application redraws a user's desktop, retaining just enough of the old one to put the dislocation in context. In the macintosh version, the desktop clock continues to register the correct time, and the traditional menus remain at the top of the screen, but moving the mouse draws streaks across the screen or causes it to scroll like the screen on an old television. Keyboard actions cause other mysterious and frustrating behavior.

An unsuspecting user might be as traumatized by a jodi simulation as they would be by the real thing. Surely, jodi is behaving is a less ethically questionable way than virus writers. But, don't they do many of the same things? Are they shouting fire in a crowded building? A user does have to go to jodi to have an experience, but nothing warns a user that when he enters the jodi site his browser will crash and files will be downloaded to his desktop. In many ways, jodi's work is more intrusive and offending than biennale.py or forkbomb. biennale.py and forkbomb may be more dangerous, but at least they come with plenty of warnings.