The Dead Internet Theory: A Warning About the Digital World

One of DIT’s central claims is that much of the internet is dominated by bots and AI-generated content rather than real human users. Bots now account for nearly half of global web traffic, many designed to mimic human behavior such as scrolling, liking, and posting content (Spennemann; Imperva). AI-generated content now floods social media, producing short videos, posts, and images that are often indistinguishable from real human activity — “a highly addictive stream of sometimes funny and sometimes strange 10-second videos” (NPR). Experiments show that AI-generated content is increasingly indistinguishable from human-created material. In the Washington Post study, even experienced users mistook Sora-powered videos for real human content, demonstrating that automated accounts and AI content are now capable of deceiving the public (“AI Deepfake Sora Platforms”). Research shows that people often struggle to distinguish misleading or AI-generated content from real information, which allows it to influence opinions and spread rapidly (Pennycook and Rand ). The evidence suggests that a growing portion of online engagement is artificial, lending support to DIT’s claim that the internet is increasingly dominated by non-human actors. A Pew Research Center survey reinforces this point: 66% of Americans are aware of social media bots, and among those, 80% believe bots are mostly used for harmful purposes. Yet only 47% of respondents feel confident in identifying them (Wojcik, Stefan, et al.). This indicates that not only are bots prevalent, but the public struggles to distinguish real users from automated accounts, strengthening DIT’s argument that non-human actors dominate online spaces.

        The second conspiracy focuses on government and corporate manipulation of online interactions. Social-media recommender algorithms frequently amplify low‑credibility or false content over more reliable posts, increasing exposure to misinformation (Corsi). Governments and corporations exploit these algorithms to control narratives, amplify propaganda, or suppress dissenting voices. For instance, Russia employed “troll farms” to influence U.S. elections in 2016 and 2020, while China maintains strict online censorship to control citizens’ exposure to information (Freedom House). Scholars describe these coordinated efforts as computational propaganda, designed to shape public perception and manipulate trends (Woolley and Howard). Recent examples show that such manipulation continues: bots interfered in Moldova’s 2025 elections, and AI-generated misinformation spread on X (formerly Twitter) influenced political discourse (“Moldova Election”; “Twitter AI Chatbot Grok Spreads Election Misinformation”). These practices demonstrate that online spaces are not neutral, but rather strategically controlled to influence beliefs and behavior. Further evidence comes from a Pew survey on algorithms: while 38% of U.S. adults viewed social media companies’ use of algorithms to detect false information positively, 31% viewed it negatively, and 72% had little or no confidence that companies would use them responsibly (Raine, Lee, et al.). This highlights public concern that platforms may manipulate content, echoing the essay’s point about strategic control over online interactions.

       Critics of DIT argue that the internet is not “dead” and that most users are still human, as studies show that roughly 80% of social media activity originates from real people (Ng and Carley). While this is partially true, the scale of automated content and strategic manipulation is enough to distort perceptions, amplify specific narratives, and mislead the public (Muzumdar et al.; Tandoc et al.). Even if not every online interaction is artificial, the presence of bots, AI-generated content, and coordinated manipulation shows that online spaces are increasingly mediated and controlled, confirming DIT’s relevance.