Has anyone else noticed search engines are “off”?
Dead Internet Theory is a theory that the internet as it exists now is empty, devoid of real people, and that the government is using the power of Al to gaslight the entire world
population.
Let’s investigate, time for a 🧵 👇
Dead Internet Theory is a theory that the internet as it exists now is empty, devoid of real people, and that the government is using the power of Al to gaslight the entire world
population.
Let’s investigate, time for a 🧵 👇
Just to clarify, I’m not saying this IS true, it’s just an interesting theory with some bizarre and spooky elements to it.
Now, you may be thinking: This is pretty out there — is there really any proof of some nefarious attempt at worldwide manipulation through the internet?
Now, you may be thinking: This is pretty out there — is there really any proof of some nefarious attempt at worldwide manipulation through the internet?
The internet was always supposed to be a place where people who create content could share that content with a worldwide audience.
As such, it makes logical sense that the internet has grown exponentially since the 1990's — this is rarely ever questioned.
As such, it makes logical sense that the internet has grown exponentially since the 1990's — this is rarely ever questioned.
Is there anything grounded in reality to suggest the internet is actually shrinking?
Known as 'Internet Rot' or “Link Rot” — studies show that about 50% of links cited in court opinions since 1996 as well as 75% of links in the Harvard Law Review no longer work anymore!
Known as 'Internet Rot' or “Link Rot” — studies show that about 50% of links cited in court opinions since 1996 as well as 75% of links in the Harvard Law Review no longer work anymore!
What if that truth has been in front of us all along.
Well, here's a suggestion fit for our
times: Google it!
Google what? As you'll soon discover, it doesn't really matter what.
Google anything that should have tons of results — for this example, I'Il use Climate Change.
Well, here's a suggestion fit for our
times: Google it!
Google what? As you'll soon discover, it doesn't really matter what.
Google anything that should have tons of results — for this example, I'Il use Climate Change.
No matter what you believe about climate change, it's been called the existential crisis of our times, and it's
been about 50 years since scientists first warned about it.
So, the internet should have decades worth of information about climate change, right?
been about 50 years since scientists first warned about it.
So, the internet should have decades worth of information about climate change, right?
942 MILLION results?! Impressive, right?
This feels about right for something that everyone in the world has heard about — something that many people think poses an existential threat to the entire human race.
It only took .72 seconds for Google to return 942 million results.
This feels about right for something that everyone in the world has heard about — something that many people think poses an existential threat to the entire human race.
It only took .72 seconds for Google to return 942 million results.
Something rather odd happens when you go to page 2 of a Google search.
Now there's only 725 million results!? What happened to the over 200 million more we were promised!
Now there's only 725 million results!? What happened to the over 200 million more we were promised!
Strange, but still, there must be decades worth of human knowledge about this threat at our fingertips, accessible any time we want...
Until we get to page 19:
Wait, what? Only 189 results — about climate change!?
On the most used search engine in the world..
Until we get to page 19:
Wait, what? Only 189 results — about climate change!?
On the most used search engine in the world..
A quick trip to the bottom of the page provides a potential explanation:
Ah, okay, I see what you did there, Google.
You just omitted 'some' of the results, because the other 725 million (or maybe 942 million) of those results were really very similar to the first 189.
Ah, okay, I see what you did there, Google.
You just omitted 'some' of the results, because the other 725 million (or maybe 942 million) of those results were really very similar to the first 189.
How do we know if we can trust Google's opinion of how similar all those
results really are?
Ok, I'll play along Google, let's repeat the search with the “omitted results” included.
results really are?
Ok, I'll play along Google, let's repeat the search with the “omitted results” included.
Now we get 860 million results. That's similar to before, and yet another nice round number that in no way feels like a contrived estimate.
Moreover, this time I should have ALL of that knowledge at my fingertips, with none of the results omitted by an overzealous algorithm.
Moreover, this time I should have ALL of that knowledge at my fingertips, with none of the results omitted by an overzealous algorithm.
Except… something happens when moving from page 43 to page 44 — see if you can spot the difference.
Wait, why are there only 438 results now? And, just how many of those are fundamentally the same or similar to the original 189 displayed?
Wait, why are there only 438 results now? And, just how many of those are fundamentally the same or similar to the original 189 displayed?
How can the most widely used search engine in the world only have 438 total results about one of the most widely discussed issues in the world?
How can there only be 438 results
including duplicates — about an issue that stands to “impact the entire world and all of humanity?
How can there only be 438 results
including duplicates — about an issue that stands to “impact the entire world and all of humanity?
I scrolled back through the 44 pages of results, curious to see what 438 results Google had curated.
Notably, the only results prior to
2016 (there were only a handful) were from various government websites, the IPCC, university research branches, and scientific publications.
Notably, the only results prior to
2016 (there were only a handful) were from various government websites, the IPCC, university research branches, and scientific publications.
Personal blogs, web pages — any
content created by individuals not affiliated with the media or government entities were curiously absent.
Now, we should be asking what has happened to the millions of pages of content that people have created over the years about climate change.
content created by individuals not affiliated with the media or government entities were curiously absent.
Now, we should be asking what has happened to the millions of pages of content that people have created over the years about climate change.
Are they actually there somewhere, in the background, but for some reason inaccessible through Google search?
Are they really just gone? We should
also be ask: why would Google want
everyone to think there are hundreds of
millions more results out there than there actually are?
Are they really just gone? We should
also be ask: why would Google want
everyone to think there are hundreds of
millions more results out there than there actually are?
A Potemkin village is any construction (literal or figurative) whose sole purpose is to provide an external façade to a country which is faring poorly, making people believe that the country is
faring better.
faring better.
Is Google Search — the foundational product for a company worth $1682 billion in July 2021 - really just a Potemkin village for either the US as a
country, the Internet, or Google itself?
I mean, it is just Google,
right?
country, the Internet, or Google itself?
I mean, it is just Google,
right?
The number two most used search engine is Bing, so they should be reliable, right? Ah, 19.2 million results.
Not nearly as much as Google claimed to have, but certainly a respectable number. as long as it pans out.
Well, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but by page 48…
Not nearly as much as Google claimed to have, but certainly a respectable number. as long as it pans out.
Well, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but by page 48…
Despite still claiming to have 19.2 million results, only three were displayed on page 48.
Interestingly, unlike Google's approach, Bing makes it look like there are more pages of results available beyond this one - 49, 50, perhaps more.
Interestingly, unlike Google's approach, Bing makes it look like there are more pages of results available beyond this one - 49, 50, perhaps more.
Unfortunately, when one tries to click on
them or click the 'next' icon, it simply reloads page 48!!!
There's no mention of omissions, but
we can not access more than 651 of the
supposedly 19.2 million results even if we try.
them or click the 'next' icon, it simply reloads page 48!!!
There's no mention of omissions, but
we can not access more than 651 of the
supposedly 19.2 million results even if we try.
These steps and their disturbing results can be repeated easily enough by searching for virtually any term.
Search engines claim to return millions of results which suddenly evaporate into thin air if you try to pursue them. The vast majority of results will be from before 2016
Search engines claim to return millions of results which suddenly evaporate into thin air if you try to pursue them. The vast majority of results will be from before 2016
Is this proof of Dead Internet Theory? I
stumbled across it a couple years ago, and frankly I'm not sure what exactly it's proof of.
It is definitely significant — and deeply disturbing.
It’s a massive deception on a world-wide scale.
stumbled across it a couple years ago, and frankly I'm not sure what exactly it's proof of.
It is definitely significant — and deeply disturbing.
It’s a massive deception on a world-wide scale.
Whether or not Dead Internet Theory is true, search engines are behaving in a way that supports the basic idea that there's not really as much on the internet as we're being led to believe — or, if more content really does exist, it has been made inaccessible for reasons unknown.
Thanks for reading this thread, it’s a monster of a thread and took hours to make.
I really appreciate any likes and re-tweets to get this out there.
What do you think about the dead internet theory?
I really appreciate any likes and re-tweets to get this out there.
What do you think about the dead internet theory?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
