Talk:Dead Internet theory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dead Internet theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

Dead Internet theory (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 15 March 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Internet Mid‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Artificial Intelligence

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Chris Gadek (November 1, 2024). "Marketers in a dying internet: Why the only option is a return to simplicity". Fast Company. Retrieved November 4, 2024. This idea—which Wikipedia describes as a conspiracy theory, and likely originated from 4Chan—has gained surprising levels of traction in polite spaces, earning the attention of respected academics and mainstream news publications alike.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

The article should be changed

It's not a theory anymore but a fact 2806:10A6:12:7516:384E:FE51:5AD0:28D (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We still list Theory of relativity is still a theory. The name that is used in the sources is Dead internet theory. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we don't say in wikivoice that it's a conspiracy though. I think it's time for the 'conspiracy theory' label to go. Amberkitten (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have multiple sources that use the term "Conspiracy theory" when describing the DIT. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should make a distincion between two framework:

-the conspiracy framework where the dead internet is supposed to be part of some big plan to manipulate the world ---

-the pragmatic framework where a lot of different actor have a personal interest in using automated users of the net resulting in a competition to get real human interaction and increasingly taking more place on the net.

The first one might have been what originally described by the term "dead internet" but it's not anymore what the majority of people think when talking about it. Astro Flam (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to, however as I've said, the sources do not clearly make that distinction. Us making that distinction would be OR. There isn't a source saying that the definition has changed and that it no longer means what it once meant. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the very minimum it should not be in the first sentence as ai is making this theory more true by the daily. 2601:586:4600:97D0:F56E:D426:EF47:2AD2 (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply your opinion. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. -- Jibal (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every source used toward the assumption of 'conspiracy theory' is vastly outdated to the current model of the internet. It's not 'simply their opinion' when the overwhelming amount of reliable sources with any recency do not claim it to be a conspiracy theory. The article's wording is too old for the concept that it attempts (poorly) to describe. Wikipedia gets updated as things change, not held in place because one random source one time said something was a conspiracy theory. 173.81.18.122 (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, find an overwhelming number of sources that not only refer to the DIT, but specifically state that it is not a conspiracy theory. The sources in this article are only a few years old, at most. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New sources

For anyone interested, there are two new high quality sources that I'd recommend reading (both are in Springer affiliated Peer reviewed journals). I've already included them as citations and added some content based on them, but believe there is more meat we could pick from them and improve the article. If you need something to read, they're both pretty approachable.

Sommerer, Thomas (2025). "Baudrillard and the Dead Internet Theory. Revisiting Baudrillard's (dis)trust in Artificial Intelligence". Philosophy & Technology. 38 (54). doi:10.1007/s13347-025-00878-5. Retrieved 19 May 2025.
McLean, Aaron Lawson; Hristidis, Vagelis (2025). "Evidence-Based Analysis of AI Chatbots in Oncology Patient Education: Implications for Trust, Perceived Realness, and Misinformation Management". Journal of Cancer Education. doi:10.1007/s13187-025-02592-4. Retrieved 19 May 2025.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Patience"

should be "patients" 186.29.35.140 (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. Thanks! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Dead Internet Theory, while primarily focused on the proliferation of AI-generated content and declining human interaction, finds echoes in broader concerns about internet fragmentation and information control. Pakistani cybersecurity expert and former hacker, Zubair Khan, offers a related, albeit distinct, perspective. Khan posits that the global internet, as it currently exists, is moving towards a model of national compartmentalization. He suggests that in the future, each country will likely develop its own "separate internet," characterized by limited cross-border data flow and information access. In this view, the free and open exchange of information that once defined the internet would be severely curtailed, with national governments exercising greater control over the data and content available to their citizens. This outcome, according to Khan, would result in a fragmented digital landscape where information is not only filtered but geographically restricted, fundamentally altering the internet's role as a global connector. 2402:E000:6A5:A76F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any citation here. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite confident that the user has no citation because that whole comment was written by ChatGPT/an LLM of some kind NoSlacking (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per above comments, it also seems extremely off-topic. --Belbury (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk section WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, and fails WP:V

Why is there an entire section on Musk's acquisition of Twitter—especially given that it cites 7 sources, only one of which, something called "Cybernews", even mentions Dead Internet Theory? Musk debated how many Twitter users were bots, and—at least according to the sources cited—Twitter claimed it was less than 5% and Musk cited reports that it was up to 15%. Logically, this would hardly support DIT, a conspiracy theory that the internet is "mainly" made up of material from bots, etc. Indeed the sole source that mentions DIT talks about estimates that 50-80% of material is generated by bots—so even Musk's most extreme claims about Twitter wouldn't appear to be particularly good evidence of the theory.

But that's only the tip of the iceberg. Worst of all, nowhere in the sole cited source that references DIT is there anything resembling or anything supporting the Wikivoice assertion that "Believers in the dead Internet theory have pointed to this incident as evidence."

In other words: this entire section appears to be 6 sources generated by WP:OR in an effort to buttress an unsourced assertion that abjectly fails WP:V.

I won't hazard a guess as to how the instant section ended up in our article, but clearly it violates our bare-minimum encyclopedic standards. For that, and all the reasons above, I am removing it, but by all means, feel free to discuss on the Talk page—and please ping me if you do so. Thanks! Ekpyros (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this was my inclusion or not, I'd have to dig into the past revisions and it isn't likely to be worth doing. Early in this pages history, we were working with a significant body of Grey literature, YouTube videos, and the original user generated content from which the Dead Internet Theory originated. We were struggling to find reliable sources that discussed the whole theory as it was portrayed within the grey literature, which is not as much of a problem now. I suspect this section originated in that grey literature, and acceptable sources were found to support the independent claims after the fact. If the text does not stand up to scrutiny and no third party high quality source states this, then I'm not going to argue with the removal. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of subject

Our article's subject is variously capitalized as "dead internet theory", "Dead Internet Theory", and "dead Internet theory". The first makes sense, and one could even make an argument for the second, but the third has no apparent justification, as "internet" is not a proper noun and has no other valid reason to be capitalized on its own. The first "mainstream" article, which appeared in The Atlantic, used "dead-internet theory", which strikes me as most likely correct, although I'm not in any way an expert grammarian.

While I'm ultimately agnostic (other than only capitalizing "internet"), it seems we ought to at least pick one and be consistent—and I welcome any and all input! Ekpyros (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internet is capitalized on the page for Internet. There is a conversation on Talk:Internet regarding capitalization. Until there is a change in that page, I'm defaulting to use the capitalization they are using on it, if only to be consistent between Wikipedia articles. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

slant

From the lead: the literature on the subject does not support the full theory

That's a radical understatement. The whole article is heavily slanted toward conspiratorial thinking, with a lack of critical voices. A discussion of LLMs is filler to try to make this seem more credible, but the mere existence of ChatGPT et. al. is not "evidence" in support of this "theory". -- Jibal (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by your statement. There is a section detailing "Expert views" on the topic which contains several critical voices. What would you change, based on sources? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]