Talk:Dead Internet theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Relevance of music removals

@SoundEnman1: and I seem to be reverting one another repeatedly at Dead Internet theory, so I think it's time to bring this here per Wikipedia's WP:BRD policy so there can be some resolution on this.

An explanation for why I've been removing it: I've been removing the music stuff because it simply has nothing to do with the Dead Internet theory. Yes, it's artificial manipulation of the sort the Dead Internet theory discusses, but there is no mention of the Dead Internet theory or anything like it in the source given, and therefore nothing to link it to this article. Connecting the two is simply original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

SoundEnman1 has also been changing the wording "conspiracy theory" to just "theory". However, the use of "conspiracy theory" is directly supported by the sources I've given, per the verifiability policy.

@SoundEnman1:, would you like to put forward your rationale for your edits? I'd also be interested to hear what other editors have to say. — The Anome (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, nice to finally get a chance to talk to you. My first time on this Talk function, so let's see if I use it correctly. Removal of the music section is a good point, that can moved somewhere. But I would still prefer it's called a "theory" but itself. I looked at the sources and it's just an opinion of the author without any proper evidence. "Conspiracy theory" is often haphazardly thrown around whenever (1) because it's trendy to explain something unexplainable as that and/or (2) authors employ it as clickbait. "Theory" is better in my opinion because it's neutral and doesn't have the baggage that's associated with "conspiracy." SoundEnman1 (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@SoundEnman1: Hi. It's good to talk to you too. I think that's a reasonable compromise; leave "conspiracy" out, and remove the music stuff, and I'd be happy to go with that. The music stuff certainly belongs somewhere in another article, or might even merit an article itself if it's sufficiently notable.

The thing I find fascinating is that what makes the Dead Internet theory appealing is that it is actually partially true -- a significant amount of the activity on the Internet is now inauthentic and machine-generated, as part of the interlocking and self-reinforcing feedback loops of the advertising/SEO/content-farming/article-spinning/bot/propaganda ecosystem -- but not nearly as much as the theory suggests. — The Anome (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the fake music traffic is actually a perfect illustration of how the theory is partially true, but it needs to be explicitly linked in the writing of the article. In my experience, that kind of thing is done on Wikipedia all the time without the need for the reliable source to make the connection for us. And in general, I would like to see this entry expanded, because the explanations of it that exist online are all poor, compared with the obvious power of the original idea, as evidenced by how far it has spread from its origins and how often it comes up. Planetjanet (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The linked article does not state that 7% of Spotify’s catalogue was removed… it states that 7% of music created via Boomy was removed from Spotify. Am I misreading this article? If not, the statements made in this Wikipedia entry are incorrect, and much smaller in nature than stated. 99.132.121.117 (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

See also

See also section should be trimmed. Almost all linked articles are about broader topics that have little to no connection with this theory at all. Unless objections will be raised, I'll remove See also altogether. A09 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting and taking an interest in this topic!

Tl;dr: I agree the list can be shortened, and am part of the reason it's so long. As page is under construction, the see also section has topics that will hopefully be moved into dedicated sections over time. I oppose completely deleting it, but support others curating the list.

See also can certainly be trimmed, but articles within it are mostly related to bots, AI, or other internet "issues" like echo chambers, deep fakes, and content farms. The dead internet theory is that human organic content has been supplanted by these.

Roko's Basilisk is a thought experiment related to AI, so it is tangentially related.

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout:

"Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. For example, the article on Jesus might include a link to List of people claimed to be Jesus because it is related to the subject but not otherwise linked in the article. The article on Tacos might include Fajita as another example of a Mexican cuisine."

This "Dead Internet" page is under construction. I've taken an interest in it (I'm not the originator) because my personal research is in part related to misinformation, info hazards, and the internet. I have seen multiple YouTubers make videos about this topic (Check out a quick search here). It seems to have infiltrated society but not made it super deep into the more established literature/media, which is exciting! I'm hoping to see more formal sources come out over time then what we have, so we can state what the internet is already saying widely on this (Currently, because no good citations exist I'm not putting any of the unsupported claims). The "See Also" section here is a bit long, because it is holding topics that could easily go into those future sections, and as the article is built, I hope to see those links moved into more relevant content areas. I would certainly object to removing "See Also" altogether, but I'm a Wikipedia user that is of the opinion that "See Also" should be required on all pages (I know this isn't the rule). The reason is, users will serf Wikipedia using these links, so a well curated list is really beneficial to the function of the project. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@GeogSage: Then I suggest leaving Roko's basilisk, walled garden and content farm, while removing everything else. Deepfakes don't have much in common as we're talking about webpages and not user profiles. Maybe leave article curation in there too, but else this section seems only tangetial to me. Maybe include one of the Internet footer templates, however I don't know the best fit of those which exist today. A09 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I found this page when it was linked on Reddit and made some edits (along with a few other redditors it looks like) to make it clear that this is a conspiracy theory with very little, if any, verified information supporting it.

I agree with A09 that the relevancy of most of these are pretty strenuous, and I'll even go farther to say that linking this unverified/unverifiable concept to so many other real ones gives the "theory" a credence that it doesn't deserve and isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.

I'll take you up on shortening the list; open to discussion on what I removed from there and will be watching to see what is added to the main body to adequately explain this concept. ~~~ Davedwtho (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting subject. In popular culture, you can see that there is a lot of chatter about this. It is something I've heard people talk about in real life. This is not surprising, as I linked earlier there are many YouTube channels that have covered this topic, with millions of views on the videos. The problem is that while there is a lot of chatter about it, there is limited traditional publications on it.

I think there is enough traditional news coverage to support at least a very small article on the topic to contextualize this conspiracy theory. If someone were to hear about it on YouTube or from a friend, this kind of article might be helpful. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source as a whole, only a small number of channels are proven to be worthy (as nowadays you see a lot of different biases and false informations there ...). Agree with Dave and seems like I'm not the only one who found it on Reddit :9 A09 (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying YouTube is a reliable source, just that it shows cultural interest in the topic. That is why I haven't ever included a YouTube video as a source and am instead using other websites as sources. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Expanding this article and adding additional sources

I have seen a lot of talk online about this topic, and seen multiple youtubers cover it. With that said, looking online there is not a ton of high quality sources on it. I attempted to add a few along with a small section of added text, but it needs more.

I suggest that sections for "Key arguments"/"Claims," "Criticisms," and "In Popular Culture" be added. If necessary, I believe the Bigfoot article is really good while handling a conspiracy type topic, and could serve as an outline. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

GeogSage, I also saw this phenomenon being discussed in a YouTube documentary and I was planning on writing this article last year but didn't have the time due to other projects. I actually saw several big name newspapers discuss it and many listed crucial aspects of the conspiracy theory not mentioned anywhere in this article, such as the fact that Google Search says that there are millions of results but only shows around 40 (forty) and it keeps showing the same few (top) results over and over and over again. There are quite a number of phenomena described by the DIT that should be listed but haven't been included in the current form of the article. Here is The Atlantic' "Maybe You Missed It, but the Internet ‘Died’ Five Years Ago - A conspiracy theory spreading online says the whole internet is now fake. It’s ridiculous, but possibly not that ridiculous?" By Kaitlyn Tiffany which discusses a number of things related to it as well.
Of course, this page will likely naturally grow due to additions in time, but I just noticed that the current article states that the conspiracy theory exists but doesn't go into the strengths of why rational people could believe it. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably non-notable

I had considered creating this article myself earlier this year because the topic is quite interesting, and the Atlantic article seemed a promising source to base the page on. However, I could not find another usable source beyond this, and looking at the sources in the article at present I don't think they're enough to meet the general notability guideline – they're either dubiously reliable blogs or merely rehashing the Atlantic piece. – Teratix ₵ 15:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it just barely scrapes by. VintageVernacular (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Same. It has some traditional media coverage, and a quick search of the rabble that is the internet shows that there is some cultural interest around the idea (again, not trying to cite YouTube creators for notability, just pointing to the volume of videos as an example of this topic likely being of interest to people). There is just barely enough traditional reliable media to scratch by in my opinion. If in a few years there is not any additional traditional reliable media sources, then we can look again at questioning notability. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree there is some cultural interest in the idea, which is why I haven't immediately gone to AfD but raised this more informal concern instead. However, if an editor with a stricter view on notability came along and sought to delete this article, I don't think the current sources would be enough to justify its survival. – Teratix ₵ 07:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The cultural notability I think is important. Looking at the page views is a bit surprising, people are clearly interested in this topic and it is important that sources exist that explain the topic in a way that isn't as sensationalized as YouTube. I have added a few more sources, and a bit more material, hopefully this helps verification a bit.

Twitter has at least one more subtopic that can be mentioned. I am considering deep diving YouTube, and Facebook literature to see if there is anything down those rabbit hole. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theory"

How can something be conspiracy without any claim of Party A conspiring with Party B? Nothing in the article suggest there is thought to be more than one organization working together unbeknownst to the public. 2604:2D80:DE09:D400:29D8:559:91E0:94AE (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

In the lead of the article it says "These intelligent bots are assumed to have been made, in part, to help manipulate algorithms and boost search results in order to ultimately manipulate consumers. Further, proponents of the theory accuse government agencies of using bots to manipulate public perception. The date given for this "death" is generally around 2016 or 2017." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems like it has or will shortly become reality, and is no longer a theory or conspiracy. Maybe this page could cover the distribution, proof of personhood, consumption of human content vs synthetic media in the future? Wesxdz (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree it isn't a conspiracy theory, whoever made this article is just trying to smear the idea by calling it that. I have changed the first paragraph to be more accurate in this way. DavidMalcolm1212112221 (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The sources state that this is a conspiracy theory. The most heavily cited article on this page from "the Atlantic" opens with the line "A conspiracy theory spreading online says the whole internet is now fake. It’s ridiculous, but possibly not that ridiculous?" I have my own opinions on this as well, and some additions I've tried to include here have been (correctly) removed because they were my own notion of the theory did not exist in reliable print sources (it entered my mind in a YouTube video and I didn't realize it WASN'T a main part of it). This was specifically in regards to Link rot.

Belief that the dead internet theory is no longer a conspiracy and will shortly become reality is fine, but including it on this without a source is original research. On a page like this, it is important to maintain a neutral point of view, and fall back on sources when in doubt. As the sources say conspiracy theory, and mention specifically who is doing the conspiring (ad agencies, corporations, governments), our opinions do not matter. Please, cite a source specifically stating it is not a conspiracy theory if you would like to make that claim.

It is important to note that a conspiracy theory is "an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.." The Dead Internet Theory asserts that many powerful and potentially sinister groups are working towards this end, some with political, and others with profit, motivations. The "more probably" explanation could be that this is a biproduct of ease of computer automation and that the governments and corporations are not actively trying for this result. It could have other explanations as well. The Oxford definition given in the conspiracy theory article is "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event." This leaves out the negative connotation or qualifier that other explanations are more probable. The label applies.

The important If you have an opinion on this, and can publish it in a reputable source, we can site it. Unfortunately, the term is used by the best source, so it is used here. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Articles cited in this Wikipedia page that refer to the Dead Internet Theory as a "conspiracy theory.":

• Did A.I. just become a better storyteller than you?
• Maybe You Missed It, but the Internet ‘Died’ Five Years Ago
• Is the internet secretly dead? Plus: bots and bye-byes on our final episode
• THE INTERNET IS DEAD: THE TRUTH BEHIND THE DEAD INTERNET THEORY
• Conspiracy Theorists Says The Internet Has Been Dead Since 2016

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

FirstName BunchOfNumbers

@Thenintendoxtream Posted a section titled "FirstName BunchOfNumbers" under the "Twitter" subsection. This text section is citing Know Your Meme and primary sources, and does not explicitly link to the Dead Internet Theory. I'm posting the text by Thenintendoxtream I reverted below for discussion. To include it, please find a reliable source that discusses the phenomena IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEAD INTERNET THEORY.

"Referring to a catchphrase used to describe a phenomenon that occurs on Twitter. The phrase reflects the commonly held belief that default Twitter handles using the format "First Name" followed by a series of digits are can be assumed to be bot accounts. The specific phrase "FirstName BunchOfNumbers" originated from a tweet by user @wuooods on April 19th, 2020. The user tweeted, "Hello my name is Firstname Bunchofnumbers and i have some incredibly shitty opinions," and received over 20,000 likes and 5000 retweets in two years. On August 31st, 2020, tech writer Darius Kazemi published a blog post on his website "Tiny Subversions" with the title "On Twitter usernames with lots of numbers." The article discussed the reasons as to why there was a sudden uptick in Twitter users with the username format "FirstName BunchOfNumbers," outlining a 2017 change in Twitter account policies. An excerpt from the entry reads, "The thing is, since at least as far back as December 2017, the Twitter signup process has not allowed you to choose your own username! It instead gives you a name based on your first and last name, plus eight numbers on the end. You aren't prompted to pick a more distinctive username after that, and you can change it but you need to figure out how to do it yourself. (The December 2017 date was confirmed to me privately by someone who works at Twitter Design.)" On December 19th, 2020, Twitter user @Carolin64723572 posted a tweet announcing Tier 4 quarantine for London a few days ahead of Christmas 2020. The announcement was made from reputed journalist Caroline Wheeler's temporary account, the username of which followed the FirstName BunchOfNumbers format, leading people to question the validity of her claim. On May 14th, 2022, Parag Agrawal, the at the time CEO of Twitter, posted a thread addressing concerns about the supposed saturation of Bot accounts on Twitter. He used the term "FirstNameBunchOfNumbers" in a tweet that received over 2000 likes and over 200 retweets, further legitimising the term. By 2022, the use of the phrase "FirstName BunchOfNumbers" had entered Twitter users vocabularies as a way to refer to Bot accounts or simply to refer to older, less tech savvy Twitter users with inflammatory opinions. The screenshot of the original tweet by user @wuooof is often used in response to tweets made by FirstName BunchOfNumbers accounts. Twitter users have also come to associate accounts with a username following this format with conservative ideas. For instance, Twitter user @GidMK posted an edit of the original @wuooof tweet to comment on the saturation of supposed Bot accounts promoting the use of horse-dewormer Ivermectin as a Covid-19 cure."

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This is original research, but my experience as a Twitter user is that "firstname bunchofnumbers" does not refer to suspected bots, but rather to elderly and not-internet-savvy users who don't know or care enough to change their handle from the default. I doubt you'll find a source connecting it to the dead internet theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.198.146.55 (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Origin

I know there isn't really a way to prove this, but I was an avid user of 4chan back in the late 2000s, and I remember a popular type of trollpost was to say something like "Everyone on the internet is a bot except you. Prove me wrong." and people would jokingly try to either confirm or disprove the statement. It was seen as a playful exercise in online solipsism. The article says that this originated in the early 2010s, but I am 100% sure it started in the late 2000s (around 2006-2008). Again, I have no way of proving this. Noxteryn (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I remember similar posts on other websites as well, but we need reliable sources that document the joke AND link it to the dead internet theory. Just because the joke was made does not mean it is actually related to the topic. If you can find a good source (not "Know your Meme") that discusses those jokes and explicitly links them to the development of the dead internet theory, then by all means add it! Unfortunately, anything else would be original research. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Kaitlyn something something

Why is the opinion/commentary of a staff writer at a magazine relevant? I feel tempted to delete it.

Leaving aside the authority argument, she's not even specialized in the subject Ariodant (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Her article in the Atlantic is likely the best source for this topic online. It is also the article that seems to have brought the topic into the "mainstream" media. Many of the other sources have called back to it even if they build upon it. It was important to describe the conspiracy aspect of the theory, and the quote was a good contribution. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Re-read article and the exact quote in it comes from Caroline Busta, "the founder of New Models, a pro-complexity media node for the critical analysis of art, tech, politics, and pop culture." I have fixed the text of the article to reflect the source of the quote. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Artificial influencers and the dead internet theory

A publication titled "Artificial influencers and the dead internet theory" was published this month in "AI and Society." This is a Springer peer-reviewed journal, even if the article itself may not be peer-reviewed (I'm not sure if this was subject to review as it is described as a "opinionated column on trends in technology, arts, science and society, commenting on issues of concern to the research community and wider society."), and a bit higher quality then a lot of the news ones we have so far. I included it in the lead sentence already, but believe that some content can be pulled from this and used to improve the article overall. I removed one source that was redundant and replaced with this one.

Just thought I'd point this out here in case anyone wants to take a look and see what they think can be added from here. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Is IFLScience a reliable source?

IFLScience published an article on February 1, 2024 title "Dead Internet Theory: According To Conspiracy Theorists, The Internet Died In 2016." This article has some content that could be used to improve the page, but I'm not sure of the consensus of the source reliability. Media Bias factcheck gave them a "high credibility rating" and stated:

"Overall, we rate IFL Science as pro-science and Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that routinely favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record."

Is there any precedent on using IFLScience? I don't see them on Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)