Talk:Dead Internet theory

A "expert view" or "scientific view" section.

There are a variety of responses to the Dead internet theory. On the Bigfoot page, there is a section for "Scientific view." I think a similar section could be warranted here. Many of the people are not scientists, and I don't know if "expert" would be the best word choice. Any examples that we could build off of for a section title? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• I added this section after the latest IP editor post was reverted. Regardless of their edit summary being a bit uncivil, it does show a trend of discontent with that portion of the article. I believe my edit has made it better while maintaining content.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Potential bias in abstract

The overview certainly takes the most extreme version of the concept and assumes it to be default, thus foreclosing any potential space for intellectual discussion among those who do not believe there to be any intent, concerted or otherwise, behind the phenomenon. At the very least, it should mention in passing how it can be confused in common parlance with observance of trends in internet social behavior.Senriam (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The overview is based on multiple reliable sources and the description of the topic there. I'm aware that social media, TikTok, and YouTube often focus on different aspects of the topic. We can mention what is in reliable sources, do you have any recommendations for changes based on reliable sources? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Prospect, September 2024: It started out as a conspiratorial joke, but it is edging ever closer to reality. [...] Dead Internet Theory, a joke-cum-conspiracy [...] but in the years since, reality has begun to mirror this once unserious conspiracy. [...] The joke of the Dead Internet Theory was that everyone else online might have disappeared, and you could be left alone without noticing. In the decade since the idea caught on, emerging technologies have been harnessed almost as though this is the goal. Article draws clear distinction between the original joke/conspiracy and the AI slop reality that has emerged. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that contradicts the lede. "Edging closer to reality", "begun to mirror this once unserious conspiracy," etc. don't say that it IS realty, or that it isn't a conspiracy theory. How would you change the lede, specifically, based on this source? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

At a minimum the lead needs a new paragraph that mentions the AI boom giving renewed interest in the "dead internet theory". And discussion of AI slop being the content than now makes the internet dead. The idea began to gain traction almost a decade ago, with the “time of death” of the internet typically given as being around 2015 or 2016—but in the years since, reality has begun to mirror this once unserious conspiracy. The complaint of the modern internet is that it is filled with “slop” content, the spiritual successor to email spam. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We mention the term AI Boom and AI slop within the body of the article. These are fairly new terms, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so these terms giving "renewed interest" in the Dead Internet Theory isn't really that relevant to what it actually is. Furthermore, from what I've seen, this theory has been growing fairly steadily, nobody really lost interest in it, people have become aware of it as it becomes a hot item for clickbait articles and TikToks. The lede says, "The dead Internet theory has gained traction because many of the observed phenomena are quantifiable, such as increased bot traffic, but the literature on the subject does not support the full theory." This seems to satisfy your original point, that it should indicate observed trends in social behavior. The goal isn't to enable a space for "intellectual discussion among those who do not believe there to be any intent." Here, we just summarize what the sources say, and we have a lot of pretty good ones that the lede has been based on. It will take equally solid ones that are quite direct and literal in their statements about the theory to really tip the balance against the ones we have, although I'd be excited to see good publications that discuss the different uses of the term over time. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Evidence section

The evidence section has become bloated with info loosely related to one another. What do we do? — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 20:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't really know. The section is an agglomeration of stuff said in sources. The content isn't related to each other, but to the central topic of the article, which is why they are in different sections. Do you have any suggestions to fix this? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, it feels a bit too close to Slop_(artificial_intelligence).

From my view the three biggest topics for this section are:

- AI Content: How much content in a given platform is original human content or AI made (not counting reposts).

- Bot use: Online bot use for spam/scams or for other lucrative means (viewbotting or engagement bots).

- "Fake" influencing: The use of bots or AI content in order to influence or manipulate a narrative. Something similar to Astroturfing I guess?

But I'm also not sure on what format would be best. If someone wants to tackle editing the page and also wants some ideas I found some pretty cool articles with a quick search:

[1]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2012.10.005

[2]https://doi.org/10.1145/1772690.1772742

[3]https://doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2011.2126591

[4]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107074

[5]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020.105875

[6]https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV51070.2023.01879

I also found this JMIS journal, which I haven't heard of before but it seems to be tackling similar topics lately. ZorasSon (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A lot of these articles predate the dead internet theory by a few years, and I didn't see it mentioned in any of them. The reason I bring this up is I've been trying to avoid using AI related papers that don't explicitly mention the theory to avoid accidently doing synthesis and original research. If there is something specific the source can do to supplement literature on the topic, then for sure, but I can't personally see how to bring those in. The topic of Slop (artificial intelligence), dead links, and other various topics have overlap, but are distinct in their use. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, you're completely right, my bad.

I think the way it is now is fine, since it seems to tackle first AI, then the bot traffic (Imperva bot traffic report), then social media. The bot traffic section could be increased slightly (as in, what exactly is web traffic in this scope?), but the dead internet atlantic article that sources it just has a "Read: [link]" on it, so I'm also not sure on what the correct direction would be based on that (or even if it should be included in the first place).

Without new sources that tackle directly the theory it would be difficult to expand that section. The "See also" articles and other links used in the text seem to do a good job on directing the reader to similar topics that are more (academically) explored. ZorasSon (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Add to 2020s neologisms page

Can someone do this - I don't have an account. 82.42.52.38 (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Spikes in views between November 5th and November 11th 2024

There are often times spikes in the page views when an article or video on the topic goes viral. Between November 5th and 11th the page saw a substantial increase in views, peaking at 110,932 on November 8th. I've been trying to find the reason for this, as it might be a worthwhile source. Anyone have any ideas? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

2024 US Elections presumably and the slew of fake news related to it. Czyszy (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought about the election, but a Google search for Dead Internet Theory specifically between November 1st and 13th (here) doesn't turn up anything out of the ordinary, and nothing specific to the election. I can usually see some weirdly popular article, or TikTok/YouTube video during the spikes, but this one looks a bit odd. Best I can find in the past month is a video on the YouTube channel Decoding the Unknown titled The Dead Internet Theory: The Internet in 2024 is A Lie with 214,867 views as of this comment, but that was published on Nov 22, 2024 GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Wait, what? My post was removed.

Trying to figure out why? peeeeeee-yew! (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM A09|(talk) 13:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense? What does this mean? What is allowed? peeeeeee-yew! (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

So no talking. Except you should posted a reason why you removed this, on my talk page. peeeeeee-yew! (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I am so confused x3 so many people yell at me on this site. I am sorry for redirecting any negativity back towards you. peeeeeee-yew! (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

No worries, we're always happy to help newbies :) We were all once newbies. A09|(talk) 14:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Also answered on my talkpage. A09|(talk) 14:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)