Talk:Dead Internet theory

This is not a conspiracy theory

Literally look at any website or social media, SEO optimized websites are literally written by bots. Why is this considered a conspiracy theory? Maybe the real psyop is to make us believe this theory is not real... Majaretas (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a talk section on this already. Much of the content on this topic is from less then credible sources like YouTube and self published blogs. When it comes to reliable sources, the literature is a bit thin. Of the articles that have been cited on the page, at least five use the term conspiracy theory to describe it:

• 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

Therefore, the wording here reflects the language used by these sources. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

What is a conspiracy? It's a secret group making a plan, generally for their own interest? This theory does not require a conspiracy between ANYONE. It's just an observation of the state of the internet. The use of the term "conspiracy" here is completely inappropriate. 75.157.105.81 (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The use of the word "conspiracy" is based on the sources. From what I've read, the "dead internet theory" as a conspiracy theory goes far beyond "a lot of content is bots." The theory preposes that numerous coordinated actors are working towards that goal. Within the text it states "Proponents of the theory believe these bots are created intentionally to help manipulate algorithms and boost search results in order to ultimately manipulate consumers."

It also includes the quote "The U.S. government is engaging in an artificial intelligence powered gaslighting of the entire world population." These are your agents.

Regardless, the fact remains the majority of the sources we have used for verification of the topic refer to the dead internet theory as a conspiracy. If you disagree with the word choice, Wikipedia is not the place to have that battle, as that would be a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That's ONE interpretation of the theory. The other interpretation, sources for which can be easily found, gives a multitude of reasons behind this that requires no conspiracy at all. For example, the simple VERIFIABLY TRUE acts of search engine optimization for advertising revenue, as well as bots spamming controversial comments to drive engagement, can be pointed to as the prime examples of the theory, and neither of these can be called a conspiracy.

"Proponents of the theory believe these bots are created intentionally to help manipulate algorithms and boost search results in order to ultimately manipulate consumers" Do you genuinely believe that this satisfies the definition of conspiracy? That some companies are trying to make money through advertising revenue and thus do things like this to drive engagement?

"the fact remains the majority of the sources we have used for verification" Found the problem. The majority of the sources YOU have used. Sounds to me like you already believe that the conspiracy angle is an appropriate way to frame the theory, so using that preconceived bias, you fell into confirmation bias.

Sources deserve to be questioned. 75.157.105.81 (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the majority of the citations used for verification use the term conspiracy theory, and as things are subject to interpretation, to avoid violating the policy around original research, we default to what the outside sources say. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Why have those specific citations been chosen? 75.154.224.75 (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I have spent a significant amount of time hunting down citations that mention the dead internet theory in reliable sources. Some that I thought were good, such as the Forbes article "The Dead Internet Theory, Explained" were removed because the consensus was they weren't reliable.

In terms of reliability, there is only one paper in a peer-reviewed publication I've found that discusses it. There is one book I've seen too that seems pretty good. However, the article that seems to have made the topic "mainstream" is the one in the Atlantic, and it is cited by many of the other sources used here. Most of the sources call it a conspiracy theory, or don't call it anything, and that is the problem. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 08:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Definitely an example of citogenesis if I've ever seen one. Atlantic calls it a conspiracy theory -> Wikipedia calls it a conspiracy theory -> other articles call it a conspiracy theory.

I've not found any peer-reviewed papers except the one already in the article, but there is also a journal article and a dissertation, neither of which hold the contempt for the theory that the Atlantic does.

• https://www.jstor.org/stable/27244117 (already cited)
• https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6754&context=gc_etds

I'm not arguing that the term conspiracy theory shouldn't appear on this page though. In my opinion, there are two aspects to Dead Internet Theory:

1. That the majority of the internet interactions is now performed by bots (essentially true, and provably so)

2. That the reasons for this are ... (mostly baseless conspiratorial speculation)

So I'd propose changing the lead to something like "The dead Internet theory is the idea that the Internet now consists mainly of bot activity and automatically generated content, marginalizing organic human activity. Proponents of the thoery propose this is done by a conspiracy of corporations to manipulate customers or by governments to manipulate public perception". //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I really don't think this is an example of citogenesis from Wikipedia, the sources used for initial verification were using the term.

I found that masters thesis a while ago when looking for sources. Wikipedia has some criteria around reliable sources, and they specifically mention dissertations and masters thesis. They can be used with extreme caution, and I did not think it met the minimum requirements really, specifically " Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence," and this one has not. In many cases, thesis are essentially a self published piece even if they have some theoretical checks by advisors. This one looks particularly bad in my opinion. First, it is citing this Wikipedia page, and as someone one who wrote a lot of this page I'm a bit horrified by this. I don't want to be overly harsh to this thesis, but the section discussing the Dead Internet Theory is not really what I consider objective, well written, well sourced, material. It is essentially the authors opinion on the topic, complete with rhetorical questions asked of the reader and loaded language dismissing points the author disagrees with. The thesis cites the Atlantic article and the Swaddle, which could have been used instead of the Wikipedia page. It is clearly not in agreement with the Atlantic, but clearly the Swaddle doesn't align with this author either.

In the Swaddle article, it states:

"The “dead internet theory” was a fringe conspiracy, but it contains some nuggets that feel true to our age"

It also goes on to state:

""The U.S. government is engaging in an artificial intelligence powered gaslighting of the entire world population,” said a user on Agora Road, who pioneered the theory itself."

This shows a common thread going back to the origin of the theory, it was always tied to government and corporate entities intentionally doing this. The Swaddle article cites the Atlantic article as well. What seems to confuse people is that "The Dead Internet Theory" is referring to a very specific thing, not just "That the majority of the internet interactions is now performed by bots (essentially true, and provably so)." Multiple sources address this.

The Jstor article you cited is from The New Atlantis (journal), and "The journal is editorially reviewed, however is not peer-reviewed on scientific topics." While it might not "hold the contempt for the theory that the Atlantic does" (I disagree with this statement, I have read all these articles at least once and don't think the Atlantic article holds contempt for the theory), it uses the word "conspiracy" to refer to the theory, and calls believers "conspiracy theorits" in the conclusion. The New Atlantis article states the following:

"This is the world of the Internet after about 2016 at least according to the Dead Internet Theory, whose defining description appeared in an online forum in 2021. The theory suggests a conspiracy to gaslight the entire world by replacing the user-powered Internet with an empty, AI-powered one populated by bot impostors. It explains why all the cool people get banned, why Internet culture has become so stale, why the top influencers are the worst ones, and why discourse cycles seem so mechanically uniform. The perpetrators are the usual suspects: the U.S. government trying to control public opinion and corporations trying to get us to buy more stuff.

The Dead Internet Theory reads like a mix between a genuinely held conspiracy theory and a collaborative creepypasta-an Internet urban legend written to both amuse and scare its readers with tales on the edge of plausibility. The theory is fun, but it's not true, at least not yet. With Al-powered tools soon running in everyone's pocket, the story of the Internet as a sterile realm of bots in human guise will become downright persuasive, and possibly true. Does it have to be this way?"

Reading the journal article, they use the dead internet theory to make predictions about 2026, and in the conclusion refer to believers in the theory as "conspiracy theorists":

"Alas, even with all silver linings accounted for, it will still be a dead Internet, only not quite as bleak as the conspiracy theorists predicted."

Fundamentally, the sources I've read have overwhelmingly used the word "conspiracy theory" to describe the dead internet theory. There are a few sources that don't, but other then the masters thesis don't really take a position on the issue. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:30, 17 March 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)

Adding back content.

Undid two revisions that removed substantial content from cited articles. To address one edit summary, the Atlantic article states "Caroline Busta, the Berlin-based founder of the media platform New Models, recently referenced it in her contribution to an online group show organized by the KW Institute for Contemporary Art. “Of course a lot of that post is paranoid fantasy,” she told me. But the “overarching idea” seems right to her." This is where the content in the lead came from.

The next point, the discussion of the "I hate texting" tweets is a major point within the Atlantic article. This article serves as one of the main sources for the page. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification, I think I tried to Find In Page "Caroline Busta" on the article but neglected to notice that the majority of text was behind a login window at the bottom of the page, my mistake Equirax (talk) 00:47, 18 March 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)

Possible source: "The Church of the Serpent: The Philosophy of the Snake and Attaining Transcendent Knowledge"

The book "The Church of the Serpent: The Philosophy of the Snake and Attaining Transcendent Knowledge" has content related to the dead internet theory. I'm not sure how reliable this is as a source, or if it could be included in the "in popular culture" section at all. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of term conspiracy theory

Many if not most of the sources used on this page use the word "conspiracy theory" to describe the dead internet theory. They even get into the "conspiracy" component. Please don't remove the word conspiracy theory without strong supporting evidence from reliable sources. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

While I don't debate that there are conspiracy theories attached to the Dead Internet Theory, multiple of the sources acknowledge and do highlight the sharp rise in bots and now the use of generative AI to create bot content as well as how algorithms work, etc, all that jazz, and so there is grounds for observation, but then afterwards conspiracy theories are attached to it.

I think rewording the very front of the intro to remove conspiracy theory would be fair, as per citing the different sources already cited, but to later add "Conspiracy theory" either as a section detailing the conspiracies, since there seems to be a few particular angles and claims that the sources do detail, it's still a big part of the phenomena, but at it's core I feel like it's more of an observation, than a theory insinuating intent that's malicious or scheming. You could still keep "Conspiracy theory" in the introduction since it is big enough to be part of the major ideas presented within the article. Katacles (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The majority of the sources used call it a conspiracy theory, or nothing.

The original post for the dead internet theory cited the increase in bots, but many people had already published on that. It went on to state "I think it's entirely obvious what I'm subtly suggesting here given this setup, but allow me to try to succinctly state my thesis here: the U.S. government is engaging in an artificial intelligence powered gaslighting of the entire world population."

For example, one of the better sources is a book titled "The Metaweb" published by CRC Press. It defines it quite clearly "The Dead Internet Theory is a conspiracy theory that suggests the Internet has died and that much of the content we see online is now artificially generated by Al to manipulate the world population. The theory raises concerns about the impact of Al on propaganda, art, and journalism."

The "dead internet theory" is not just "most of the internet is bots," although some people online seem to think that is all there is to it. It's a bit like saying the Area 51 conspiracy theories are valid because the government does have a secret base in the desert.

I have been wanting to create a section that goes on to detail the use of the "dead internet theory" in culture to describe the increase in bot content, however I can't do this in a way that isn't original research at this point. I have a few examples among the citations on this page, but the idea that I'd want to convey, that some people have begun using the term "dead internet theory" to mean "more bots then people" is not something that has been published in outside literature. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and as the problem grows, hopefully there's more reliable sources reporting on the issue at hand so we have enough to warrant a second article and can split the conspiracy theory from the phenomena. Katacles (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Citing the original thread

The dead internet theory originated in an online thread, should it be cited as a primary source? link. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This can't be the origin as the OP in that thread refers to the date 2018. You can find older mentions of it on archives of /x/. For example here is thread about "empty internet theory" posted on 09/19/2017. 75.172.99.98 (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

To my understanding, the thread in my link is an archive of the original. I base this on the Atlantic article GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

While that is a source for the Atlantic article, the thread refers to a news article from 2018 which shows that it is not the origin of the theory as I have shown a thread from 2017 of people talking about the theory. 75.172.99.98 (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

On the use of the term Conspiracy theory: Citations needed for section discussing the use of the term to describe "A lot of bots online"

I'm seeing a lot of media on YouTube and Reddit discussing the DIT. These sources tend to use it to describe the internet being more bots then humans, what has been called "the inversion" on YouTube. In the citations we have, the DIT is more then just bots on line, and the word "conspiracy theory" is used. This is causing some issues as users who are seeing the term used online to describe the increase in AI generated content and bot activity do not think it necessary is a "conspiracy theory," because they aren't using it in that context.

Unfortunately, I can not see any reliable sources that specifically say "the DIT has now come to be used by some to refer to the increase in bot and algorithm content, dropping the need for a group of conspirators in government or corporations." Without such as source for that statement, it is original research. A source that says "I think the DIT is true, it's not a conspiracy" can be interpreted to just be conspiratorial thinking if it isn't clearly separating the term.

I think a section detailing this would be meaningful, but I don't have any sources for it that I'm comfortable using. Until we do, the current sources say what they say (hate to be a wet blanket). If anyone stumbles upon strong reliable sources backing up this change in word usage, please add it and we can collaborate to bring that into the page. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The term "Dead Internet Theory" was used to refer to a conspiracy theory, but is no longer

Yeah I know this topic has been covered but I wanted to add my input.

Definitions change over time. It is clear that Dead Internet theory started as a speculative and outlandish conspiracy theory circa 2016 but now is used largely to refer to the observable proliferation of bot-generated content on the Internet. To be clear: I am not purporting that the original theory has been proved correct - I am saying that the term is now rarely used with reference to the original conspiracy theory.

The conspiracy theory origin of the term is well-documented and should remain in the article, but the definition given in the article's current form does not reflect the most popular contemporary use of the term, which does not presuppose any conspiratorial element.

Here are some sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/30/techscape-artificial-intelligence-bots-dead-internet-theory "The theory wasn’t wrong – it was just too soon" [...] "In 2021, the internet felt dead because aggressive algorithmic curation was driving people to act like robots. In 2024, the opposite has happened: the robots are posting like people."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2024/01/16/the-dead-internet-theory-explained/?sh=72eef9b957c2 "The [original definition] was written back in 2021, before the commercial release of ChatGPT and before AI became such a hot topic (although it was always a subject of speculation and discussion). Now, the theory has become something of a meme and semi-ironic description of the internet."

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/dead-internet-web-bots-humans-b2530324.html "In recent months, the so-called “dead internet theory” has gained new popularity. It suggests that much of the content online is in fact automatically generated, and that the number of humans on the web is dwindling in comparison with bot accounts."

I propose a rewrite of the lede (and much of the article) to something along the lines of "The dead Internet theory is term most commonly used to refer to the proliferation of AI-generated content on the Internet. Originally a conspiracy theory asserting that the Internet had been entirely replaced by bot activity manipulated by algorithmic curation, the term has been repurposed in recent years to refer to the observable increase in content generated via LLMs such as ChatGPT appearing in popular Internet spaces" Gravyd2 (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)