Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 'Dead Internet Theory'

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: The 'Dead Internet Theory'

#61

Post by Balgair »

throwaway2562 wrote: post #9

By analogy, there’s some loose link to be made between this and the Dark Forest Hypothesis. Given that the internet is filled with explicitly predatory algorithms and deceptive ‘dark patterns’ both trying to attract attention, thereby extract personal data or cash from humans, letting them know you are a human is merely to invite attack. There may be advanced civilisations hidden online, but we are not them. Discuss…

I never did like the Dark Forest Theory.

Like, resources and energy are fairly abundant in the universe. There's really nothing of material value that we have here in Sol that other species wouldn't be able to get closer to their own systems. So, scarcity isn't a big factor, I think.

Instead, the more scarce thing in the universe is life, with intelligent life presumably more scarce than that. We, ourselves, are the valuable things.

But Dark Forest theory isn't totally an economics argument, it's more of a security argument. With the vast distances and times, other species could become dangerous quickly, so kill them before they are. Again, the vastness and long time scales are just too loose of a thread. Even in the books, humans manage to seep out and hide among the dust and planets, doing things in the dark or in the blinding radiation of stars. So, I don't buy the security argument either. There's just too much space and material out there to really ever be sure that you could ever really sterilize the other species and not have them come back to haunt you. Especially by the time you actually figured out they existed, they'd be everywhere. (The books invent this dimension collapsing weapon idea as a way around this).

So, I think we should have the counterpoint to the Dark Forest theory of hunters with flash lights in a dark forest.

We should have "Used Car Salesman / Lemon Law" theory: Since you can't really beat them 100%, intelligences realize that you should join them; but on favorable terms, of course. So, beware of alien civilizations that appear in your system with lots of flags and balloons and bad ties and big smiles and want you to sign on a dotted line, fast. You can't really know if they are trying to sell you a lemon before the other civilizations show up and negotiations can really start.

Re: The 'Dead Internet Theory'

#63

Post by mkatx »

brabel wrote: post #43
kvakerok wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They must've hard-coded something in recently, because I've got a permanent injection of scantily clad tiktok booty into my feed as well, and my account had no changes for years. I think they're just blanket applying it to all men now.

The algorithm probably and correctly noticed that all men in general have trouble not clicking on scantly clad booty posts.

I haven't dug into it, cause I don't really care.. but I imagine that fb/meta tracks more than clicks. If I were them, I'd have js on the page that tracks your scrolling, and pays attention to the posts you 'hover' over for longer.

I bet that's just one of the ways they track behavior on their platform. So if you slow down to check out the ladies, I bet more show up, even if you don't click.

Re: The 'Dead Internet Theory'

#64

Post by houseplant »

lucianbr wrote: post #41
houseplant wrote: post #7

I watched a great video essay about this. Bots to create fake articles, bots to defect fake articles, bots to use common word salad to evade detection, bots detecting the word salad, bots to make comments on articles, bots to upvote those comments, bots to aggregate these articles and generate articles out of the comments, bots to rip off and change a bit of the wording of an article so they could repost the article,…

I can't see any other ending for this than people simply giving up on using social networks, at least those that exist now and exhibit this phenomenon. I feel that in search of a few more dollars from engagement, they are slowly killing their main product. People will eventually learn that this is not a useful thing, and avoid it, although it happens slow. But once this enters the mainstream consciousness, it's over.…

the more I think about it the more I believe people will, or should at least, return to the OLD internet... things like BBS forums, RSS feeds of people's personal websites or blogs, webrings... things that haven't been completely and totally usurped by ads to turn us into content cows.

I hate that I find myself thinking, it really was better back then

Re: The 'Dead Internet Theory'

#65

Post by houseplant »

130e13a wrote: post #16
houseplant wrote: post #7

I watched a great video essay about this. Bots to create fake articles, bots to defect fake articles, bots to use common word salad to evade detection, bots detecting the word salad, bots to make comments on articles, bots to upvote those comments, bots to aggregate these articles and generate articles out of the comments, bots to rip off and change a bit of the wording of an article so they could repost the article,…

do you have a link to the video essay you're referencing?

Sure. I didn't want to directly link it without being asked because I didn't want to seem like I was promoting anything or anyone, but it's this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXGjwf6zUWY

Re: The 'Dead Internet Theory'

#66

Post by brabel »

mkatx wrote: post #63
brabel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The algorithm probably and correctly noticed that all men in general have trouble not clicking on scantly clad booty posts.

I haven't dug into it, cause I don't really care.. but I imagine that fb/meta tracks more than clicks. If I were them, I'd have js on the page that tracks your scrolling, and pays attention to the posts you 'hover' over for longer. I bet that's just one of the ways they track behavior on their platform. So if you slow down to check out the ladies, I bet more show up, even if you don't click.

Yes, absolutely, I think most people don't click on those anymore, they just let it autoplay and pretend in their minds that they were not really watching it, just scrolling :D.

Re: The 'Dead Internet Theory'

#67

Post by JoachimS »

houseplant wrote: post #7

I watched a great video essay about this. Bots to create fake articles, bots to defect fake articles, bots to use common word salad to evade detection, bots detecting the word salad, bots to make comments on articles, bots to upvote those comments, bots to aggregate these articles and generate articles out of the comments, bots to rip off and change a bit of the wording of an article so they could repost the article,…

And the Cambrian explosion, exponential development this triggers. Esp with AI driving the development (evolution) of these bots, detection mechanism, evasion mechanism, optimization of ROI. Including testing ways to improve extraction of the asset called 'money' - from the abstract thing called 'humans' and their agents.

We meat sacks don't stand a chance. We need to evolve.

Re: The 'Dead Internet Theory'

#68

Post by Aerbil313 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #58

Was social media ever a good idea. Some people would never question it; some may even stake their livelihood on it. (Dumb idea.) But the internet, as a computer network, has always been more than social media, or even Usenet. These are not necessarily the "highest and best use" of the internet as a public resource. Was sending direct mail, i.e., junk mail, the highest and best use of the postal service. It might have…

Congratulations. Next step is to ask "Was modern technology ever a good idea?". You can start with the book Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski: https://ia800207.us.archive.org/16/items/tk-Technological-Sl...

Re: The 'Dead Internet Theory'

#69

Post by kvakerok »

dspillett wrote: post #48
kvakerok wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They must've hard-coded something in recently, because I've got a permanent injection of scantily clad tiktok booty into my feed as well, and my account had no changes for years. I think they're just blanket applying it to all men now.

Not much by way of scantily clad anythings on my feed, but I've experienced a sudden glut of anger-bait posts, both there and in other places. Not sure if it is due to election season, or if the Algorithms On High have noticed me trying not to interact with the eternal14s any more and are trying to drag me back off that wagon. Though the theory I currently think most likely is that a number of worthwhile posters have…

I'm afraid you're right about the asshole-to-normal ratio and the implications of that worry me.
Post reply on HN