Talk:Dead Internet theory/Archive 1

@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.[1] 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[2] 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"[3] 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[4] 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[5] 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[6] 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[7] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If you look above, there is a discussion on getting this change made that I started a while ago. Some issues I've run into so far.

First, the Forbes article was included by me as a source a while ago. On February 9th 2024, that source was removed by another editor. This was based on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources that states "Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert."Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors or "Senior Contributors" with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable." I don't know how that consensus was reached, but the article listed is one of these senior contributor pieces which fall into the category "generally unreliable."

The Guardian article doesn't redefine the full theory and is ambiguous on if the Internet is already dead, or if it is still approaching but "too soon." It also doesn't say it wasn't a conspiracy theory, just that it "wasn't wrong," and explicitly uses the word "conspiracy theory" to describe it without ever saying it isn't one. We have a lot of sources that are saying it is a conspiracy theory, or not saying anything at all, and nothing that clearly says "now is used largely to refer to the observable proliferation of bot-generated content on the Internet."

Independent is a good possibility for beginning to address the definition change to "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." The problem here is that the Independent article didn't say that was all the theory suggested, or mention that it has been redefined in recent years. An omission of the full definition is not evidence of a completely new one. This is the best step towards what I'd like to see on the page though.

The lead section you're proposing is a synthesis, which is original research. No source says: "The dead Internet theory is term most commonly used to refer to the proliferation of AI-generated content on the Internet." Most sources call it a conspiracy theory. I think we can start to work on the second half though with the article in the Independent to say "the term is sometimes used to describe the phenomena where AI generated content surpasses human generated content online." I've added some text to the lead and "Origins and development" section that incorporates the Independent article and some of what you suggest.

Please keep looking for sources like this! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I'll try and keep track of new sources to support this, then. Gravyd2 (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2024/05/-the-dead-internet-theory-makes-eerie-claims-about-an-ai-run-web-the-truth-is-more-sinister Freavene (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering what the best way to go about this would be. There are many AI images of "Shrimp Jesus" online but I don't know the copyright on them. Would generating an original one as an example be appropriate? How could we source one of the popular ones? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Copyright can be a little sketchy because AI images are considered copyrighted to the creator in some regions, and we won't know where a genuine found example would have been generated. Creating an original version sounds like the way to go, so long as it looks similar enough to the kind of aesthetic that was or is going around on Facebook. Belbury (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Shrimp Jesus example.jpg has now been generated and added to the article. Belbury (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Currently the articles starts by saying the dead internet theory asserts the net is overrun by bots and automated content. But you can believe this without subscribing to the conspiracy theory!

The pertinent part, that should be front and center, is the belief this was intentionally done to manipulate the population. THAT's the conspiracy theory - not merely asserting that bots exist or that automated content is spamming the web.

I suggest you rewrite the first sentence to make this clear, perhaps with:

The dead Internet theory is an online conspiracy theory that asserts that bot activity and automatically generated content manipulated by algorithmic curation was created intentionally to manipulate the population with minimal organic human activity.

Currently the two steps "bots exists" and "here's why" form two separate sentences, without it being super clear both are needed to describe the article subject.. 84.217.39.2 (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The whole conspiracy part should be a sub section. Dead Internet in itself is more of a phenomenon than anything else. 2607:FA49:7362:7500:FC2B:3161:CAD4:53AF (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The "Dead internet theory" as defined by a plethora of sources is a conspiracy theory. The idea that it is just describing a lot of bots online displacing human content is not unique to it and is not in the literature yet. This would be original research, as stated above, several times. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The wider phenomenon of bots masquerading as human internet users seems like it's already covered in the social bot article, if that's worth your focus instead. Belbury (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I have changed the lead a bit based on your feedback. Please let me know what you think and if you have more suggestions. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

To avoid a citogenesis incident, I want to point out that the article The Dead Internet Theory: Investigating the Rise of AI-Generated Content and Bot Dominance in Cyberspace seems to be using large portions of text that has been loosely reworded from this Wikipedia page. I would not recommend using this article as a source due to this. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

Many sources are old. At one point, the Dead Internet theory was more speculation than reality and could be properly categorized as a "conspiracy" theory. However, in 2024 we have solid evidence. https://theconversation.com/the-dead-internet-theory-makes-eerie-claims-about-an-ai-run-web-the-truth-is-more-sinister-229609 has a good discussion on this.

Google is changing their algorithms to filter out worthless AI generated and low-cost contractor generated content. This in itself is strong evidence that the theory has merit. Google is not going to spend a ton of money to combat a conspiracy.

Sites exist where we can submit reviews to determine if they are fake or real. Again, a service in response to a problem. Not only have well-respected names like Consumer Reports and BBB dedicated resources to informing consumers how to spot fake reviews, and even the FTC has taken the problem on.

I think it would be fair to remove the prominent "conspiracy theory" at this point and simply call it a "theory". 162.246.196.228 (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06930-7 Freavene (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2024/05/-the-dead-internet-theory-makes-eerie-claims-about-an-ai-run-web-the-truth-is-more-sinister Freavene (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Keyword search on the nature article doesn't appear to have the words "Dead internet theory" in it. The second article from UNSW seems to be very similar to the one we cite from Newsweek we cite, but there are some notable differences. I included it as a citation on the main article after seeing it, thanks for bringing it up. The article does not say the Dead Internet Theory is not a conspiracy. The article states what the dead internet theory "essentially claims." It states there is "no clear agenda and no longer involves humans at all." However, the article then goes on to discuss engagement farming, disinformation, and the potential that the "shrimp Jesus" represents "an army of accounts is being created.. Accounts with high follower counts which could be deployed by those with the highest bid." That the internet has a lot of bots on it is not really contested. The Dead Internet Theory in the literature available goes beyond that, and speculates on how various actors are using these bots. This article does the same, and makes it clear they are giving a summary of the theory, not expanding on it in its entirety. We need a source that says something to the effect of "The Dead Internet Theory, previously defined as ________, has not colloquially come to refer to a lot of bots online." Otherwise we are doing either original research, or a synthesis of sources. We have many scholarly sources that define it with the word "conspiracy theory," so it will take some weight to overturn that. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

it's about bots, which is part of the theory, you're dismissive for no reason, read it Freavene (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand it's about bots. The dead internet theory is generally broader then just bots, although some people seem to be using it to mean that. The paper doesn't really seem to have any impact on the use of term "conspiracy theory" in describing the dead internet theory. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This article seems to be about two somewhat related but distinct ideas that are both called "dead internet": the idea that there's malicious organized use of bots to control internet content, and the idea that the internet is becoming dominated by cheap automatically generated content that washes out everything else. The lead as it's written even seems to support that these are two separate ideas (The dead Internet theory is sometimes used to refer to the observable increase in content generated via large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT appearing in popular Internet spaces without mention of the full theory). Should this article be split to cover these two ideas separately? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

No. The literature on the dead internet theory states the theory is comprised of two main things:

1. the Internet now consists mainly of bot activity and automatically generated content manipulated by algorithmic curation

2. that actors are employing these bots to manipulate the human population.

On YouTube, TikTok, Twitter/X, Reddit, etc. people seem to have been using the term colloquially to only mean the first part, and several citations in this article do discuss the theory in terms of the 1st part. However, there is no good source that states the theory is two separate ideas, or that clearly states the term is now being used to describe only the first part. If you look through the talk page, this usage is noted, and we're looking for good sources that clarify it for us. The current text you're noting is the best we can do right now without being original research as is. Even if we get a source that says "The dead internet theory is now used to describe the increase in bot content displacing humans, dropping the need for a group of conspirators in government or corporations" this wouldn't be a new term, just a note on how the term has changed in use over time. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Fast Company, April 2024 — "It’s called the “Dead Internet” theory, and its main argument is that the organic, human-created content that powered the early web in the 1990s and 2000s has been usurped by artificially created content. Hence, the internet is “dead” because the content most of us consume is no longer created by living beings (humans). But there’s another component to the theory—and this is where the conspiracy part comes into play. The Dead Internet theory states that this move from human-created content to artificially generated content was purposeful, spearheaded by governments and corporations in order to exploit control over the public’s perception." PK-WIKI (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

First, not sure about the source "Fast Company." Lots of tech blogs cover the Dead Internet Theory so its important to vet them.

Next, This is saying exactly what the article is already saying. Two parts to the dead internet theory, the main argument and the conspiracy component. It does not actually separate them or state that one exists without the other, and this is important. Several articles only discuss the main argument, without mentioning the conspiracy. However there isn't a good solid source that clearly states the main component of the term exists WITHOUT the conspiracy component. If there was, we could mention that some are using the term to ONLY discuss the main argument, but it would need to be quite substantial to counter the bulk of the literature on the topic already that calls it a conspiracy theory. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

> "there isn't a good solid source that clearly states the main component of the term exists WITHOUT the conspiracy component."

I don't know, the Fast Company article does seem to draw a clear distinction between the two subjects. They say that the conspiracy aspect is "unlikely", but that the AI content aspect "not only seems possible, but plausible".

Let me address the conspiracy part of the theory first. While all nation-states and corporations try to control narratives to some degree, it’s unlikely that any one or even group of them got together and said, “Hey, let’s get rid of all the human-generated content online and replace it with artificially created content.” It would be too arduous a task and would require tens of thousands—maybe even hundreds of thousands—of people to keep their mouths shut so the public never finds out. But the first part of the theory—that the internet’s human-created content is being replaced with artificially generated content—not only seems possible, it’s starting to feel plausible. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

A two part theory does not mean there are two separate theories. The idea that the internet's human-created content is being replaced with artificially generated content isn't even exclusive to the Dead Internet Theory, such as YouTubes "the Inversion." The existence of a U.S. military base at Area 51 that stores and studies alien spacecraft is one theory, even if there is really a base at Area 51. This article more then others goes out of the way to discuss the theory in its entirety, and emphasizes that there are two components. I don't see how this could be split into two articles. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that this topic be split into two articles. However, with reliable sources showing that the "AI slop" aspect exists independent of the "powerful/sinister groups" aspect, perhaps the first sentence and lead should be adjusted to reflect the WP:DUE weight of the "conspiracy theory" label. At Area 51, the existence of the base is discussed first and the UFO stuff is withheld until the second paragraph. Likewise, this article should probably discuss the observable and "not only possible, but plausible" AI slop first, then later discuss the origin of the original "dead internet theory" back in the pre-ChatGPT days when it was more of a creepypasta thing. The term is clearly now being used by reliable sources to describe simple AI/bot-based enshittification without the political conspiracy motivation. Article should reflect this use, not cling only to whatever it meant in 2016. PK-WIKI (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The reliable sources don't show that these aspects exist independent, in fact the Fast Company source presents the theory as having two components. We have at least five sources that use the term "Conspiracy theory" to describe the Dead Internet Theory, and none that clearly state that they are dropping the 2nd half and using only the first. For example, one source from 2024 published by the CRC Press titled The Metaweb The Next Level of the Internet defines it as a conspiracy theory. From my reading on the topic, I think this book is likely to be the best authoritative source that addresses the topic. The Dead Internet Theory as a whole is a conspiracy theory built on a foundation of truth, like most conspiracy theories. The article clings to the strictest interpretation of the reliable sources. Some YouTubers, bloggers, and social media influencers are using the term colloquially to refer only to the first part, but these are not WP:Reliable Sources and addressing that is WP:original research unless we have an outside source. Even if a source does mention that colloquially use, it does not change the fact that based on literature, the whole theory is the sum of its two parts, and is considered a conspiracy theory. We have noted that some sources don't cover the entire theory already in the article, but the majority view that it is a conspiracy theory is "easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the significance of these tweets, other than being a possible example of a bot campaign? Why is it important to mention here? Cerulean Depths (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

These texts were specifically mentioned in at least one of the major sources. Specifically, the evidence and claims feature prominently in the article "Maybe You Missed It, but the Internet ‘Died’ Five Years Ago" After reading through a lot of the literature, I believe that Atlantic article is likely where the Dead Internet Theory became "mainstream," as in picked up by the mainstream media. Other later sources echo this evidence. It seems relevant to include. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2012.10.005

https://doi.org/10.1145/1772690.1772742

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2011.2126591

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107074

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020.105875

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)

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)

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)

Lindsay Kornick of Fox Business claims in "Meta will invest in AI-generated characters and profiles to drive up engagement" that Meta Platforms plans to introduce AI-generated profiles with biographies and pictures to Instagram and Facebook, citing an article on Financial Times. Could someone with a subscription to FT confirm this? Damian Yerrick (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

If it doesn't say Dead Internet Theory, it isn't really a good source. Saying they're "confirming" it would be original research unless someone reliable outside Wikipedia publishes it. Our job is not to connect the dots, we aggregate verifiable facts. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

If I'm understanding your reply correctly, you're claiming that this article is specifically about the use of the phrase "dead Internet theory", not the more general concept of creation of generative AI user profiles by social network site operators. Would the FT article (and articles in mainstream media publications that cite it) support a separate article about the concept in general? If so, what ought its title to be? "Creation of generative AI user profiles by social network site operators"? And how would such an article not be viewed as a POV fork of "Dead Internet theory"? Would "Creation of generative AI user profiles by social network site operators" then become the primary article and "Dead Internet theory" the article about a point of view? Damian Yerrick (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Social bot may be the article you're looking for. Belbury (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The article is about the "Dead Internet Theory," which is an online conspiracy theory about not just AI chat bots, but algorithm manipulation, search engines manipulating results of queries, and other things through a coordinated effort by organizations (most notably the U.S. Government) to achieve specific goals. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This source seems relevant and does not treat it as only a conspiracy theory. FOARP (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Reading that article it's conflating Dead Internet theory (that bots are creating fake content and posing as human users) with automated internet traffic (that bots spidering web content is on the increase, probably because of AI training). I'm not sure it's that helpful a source, when spider traffic has been around forever and isn't part of the original theory.--Belbury (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised people don't mention this. This is a document that got leaked from Google, it's quite easy to find nowdays:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5000042-390521673-the-Good-Censor-GOOGLE-LEAK/

Pay attention to p.41

   Bots account for more web traffic than
   humans.1 Governments employ
   impersonators, scraps, spammers and and
   hackers to manipulate conversations, quell
   dissent and discredit information. From
   Washington to Moscow, bots are deployed
   by governments against foreign
   adversaries and domestic opponents.2

   28.9% of all web traffic is estimated to
   come from ‘bad bots'

   448 million comments posted by users employed by the Chinese Government to impersonate ordinary citizens

...is this source acceptable for Wikipedia guidelines? 187.246.168.171 (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I suspect linking this with the Dead Internet Theory would be original research. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The document itself is not a reliable source. Do you know of any source that reported about this document? A09|(talk) 14:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/11/17962274/google-censorship-presentation-leak-free-speech-china 187.246.168.171 (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Presenting this as a conspiracy theory only (rather than a theory about something that could happen with the emergence of AI slop) is off-base. FOARP (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Presenting this theory as conspiracy is akin to misinformation. You are spreading misinformation. 75.68.135.167 (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The sources say otherwise. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

And who picked the sources? By your logic, all truth could be conspiracy theory if initially posited as a conspiracy theory. 2604:26C0:0:2:F077:DB49:6C11:4298 (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

(by anyone) (perpetually) 2604:26C0:0:2:F077:DB49:6C11:4298 (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The "sources" are all commentary. None provide proof that this is widely regarded as a conspiracy. They mention evidence that there is a growing trend and therefore support that definition in their commentary. It is now widely regarded as a growing trend, making it not a conspiracy theory, but a theory that it will perpetuate to the point that there will be far more AI content than human content. Show me in the articles where there is a wide regard of certain conspirators. Otherwise, the lede should reflect that change, since it's already supported by the articles cited. 2604:26C0:0:2:F077:DB49:6C11:4298 (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that use the words "conspiracy theory."

The main article we cite is going to be Maybe You Missed It, but the Internet ‘Died’ Five Years Ago. This one discusses the alleged "conspirators." There are several we cite similar to this one. Then The Metaweb The Next Level of the Internet (a book published by the CRC Press) defines it as a conspiracy theory. Sources say what they say. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Is it really accurate to call this a conspiracy theory nowadays when there's more and more evidence of it being true? 2.102.130.62 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources still classify it as a conspiracy theory so no, such actions would be inappropriate at the moment. A09|(talk) 22:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

"Reliable sources". 2001:4C4E:248B:100:299E:1F7C:81CE:C258 (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

We have a list of the sources. You are free to read them yourself. This kind of dismissal of sources that are counter to your opinion without providing counter sources is indicative of conspiratorial thinking. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, a reliable source is defined at WP:RS (and especially at WP:RSP) and it's not something I've made up here. A09|(talk) 07:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)