It’s 100% true. If you go Google and search for any word, it will say there are 1,000,000,000 results. If you scroll through the pages to the end, there are less than 1000 results for anything. How could this be? Even for something as simple and popular as pizza. There are less than 1000 results. Google has turned the internet a Potemkin village.
Edit: If they do not say it exists, it effectively doesn’t. This just exacerbates the issue one user spoke on about the internet just being copies of copies. You only get to see the shitty copy the powers in control want to be seen.
Google is just lying about the number of results to make their search engine seem more impressive. It's a limitation of the search engine, not the internet itself. I haven't checked, but I doubt google will ever return a result from a .win site and yet here we are existing. Google also isn't searching the Wayback Machine where there are 20 years of internet history saved. The Internet is not a potemkin village. Google search is though.
They also don't want others scraping their search database by loading 100,000 pages of results and don't want search optimizers to be able to see if their ranking went up from 12000 to 11000 because then they could reverse much of the algorithm.
Not like that matters though, for regular people Google search is like Disney World, totally fake and depicting a make-believe world.
It's pretty much just fanfiction for what has painfully obvious and always known: shit gets worse over time until it collapses. The 'dead internet theory' is way more complex and exciting than the mundane truth of this reality.
When the internet was new, all content was original or at least a first occurrence on the net. Since 99.999% of people will never produce anything original, every new person online is just copying something, giving us worse and worse content as we makes copies of copies of copies...
And that's before the internet was even monetized. Once profits start motivating people online this amplifies infinitely. Now, people and companies with no actual desire to host content start creating websites seeking easy profits. And in come the low effort content creation tools and hosting, to allow everyone to quickly publish as much as possible, trying to strike gold.
And while the profit seeking continues in the background, the social media sites come along and turn the internet into a big popularity contest. Now people are doing something even more toxic than just looking for profits, they're hoping to be cool, hoping for personal validation from the masses online. The copy of a copy effect still in full swing.
Add to this the monetization of social media. We now have real people acting like fake people, fake people acting like real people, and fake people acting like fake people trying to trick real people to act like fake people, etc.
I could go on but I'm sure you already get the idea.
I'm not denying that the alphabet groups and corporations heavily manipulate and censor the internet, but in regards to this 'dead internet theory", we'd be stuck with this shitty internet without any help from them.
The only hope there is for the internet is for some brave souls to actually create some original content, or even better create a new medium. With the creation of original forms of content we can reset the chain of making copies of copies, if only for a little while.
There's definitely a lot of bots online, but I think it's more of the 'standard practice of online marketing.'
When it comes to spreading propaganda, and trying to push a consensus, I sadly believe that fewer fake accounts are needed to push herd mentality than one might think.
I'm not denying that the alphabet groups and corporations heavily manipulate and censor the internet, but in regards to this 'dead internet theory", we'd be stuck with this shitty internet without any help from them.
What you described is more like a 'swamp internet theory' where it smells like shit, you can't grow food or anything useful, and there's parasites everywhere.
The dead internet theory is that there's no actual people, that you're talking to a computer most of the time. For example, when Hillary fell down r/politics went from swamp to mountain river in minutes. People were engaging in civil debate and sounded like actual people. A couple hours later it went back instantly. If it were normal people there wouldn't be this on/off switch or pushed narrative.
The Hillary incident may have been AI or a room full of people with a script, but it was something controlled like that.
I don't think the entire internet is dead, but by now there should be some parts that are totally controlled by AI bots. You get a large place like reddit where you don't remember individuals and a bot can easily operate in that environment.
A couple of observations related to factors that cause feedback loops without the need for central intervention:
clearly online censorship is occurring which restricts the marketplace of ideas
crowd funding causes convergence of topics and behaviors. Why do all the young women now want to show their buttholes and sell their farts?
ad supported models tends towards hyperbolic content. Even independent news sites went the way of Buzzfeed.
most algorithms and models are only good at predicting things that have already happened. Endless cycles of recommendations causing recommendations to occur.
The feedback loops lend themselves to social constructivism meaning that essentially things being true simply because they are true. This is the case for stocks s as you illustrate their valuations are interconnected and attached to the arbitrary starting state they were in prior to the establishment of automated trading
There's also archetypes which are essentially classes of narratives. Archetypes in turn are bounded by the meaning of language which only changes slowly. Hence, a recent focus on changing meaning of words.
Was going to also add that SEO was causing this way before the OP realizes on the proposed timeline. As of about 1998-1999 all websites were being funneled based upon their page rank which was essentially the degree to which they contributed to this feedback.
It's interesting. I've been living on the internet since the 1990's and it has changed a lot. I really miss the old internet - it seemed full of fascinating websites created by individuals. I remember typing things into a search engine (Webcrawler) and exploring just to see what I could find.
Now I go to a few of the sames sites every day and I never explore just for fun. Practically none of the sites I find in search engines are worth visiting ever again. It's all garbage. It may not feel empty, per se, just devoid of any real value. It feels like the search engines keep us from finding anything good - or that content has all dried up.
the internet is a fast way to get info, and info moves the mind.
As form (life) within flow (inception towards death) the mind of form needs to respond to perceived inspiration (from within spirit) yet is tempted to want to respond to suggested information (from within form).
The suggested internet deceives one to ignore the perceived "moving" inspiration communicated to ones senses; for suggested information towards ones choice of consent.
The perceived internal net represents ones comprehension of all perceived inspiration through adaption to it; while resisting the temptation to fall for the suggested information by others.
Question what comes first...perceived sound or suggested words shaped by choice out of perceived sound? Nature communicates itself by moving everything within; which senses perceive as inspiration (from within spirit; from Latin spiro - "to breathe"). Breathing represents form (life) adapting to flow (inception towards death).
Everything suggested implies by the choice of others; hence information (from within form). Every suggested information requires your consent by choice to either want or not want the suggested information. Both want or not want (suggested information) represent the ignorance of need (perceived inspiration).
Before you can choose to want or not want what others suggest; you respond as choice to balance (need/want) under natural law (as defined by flow upon form).
In short...reality communicates itself through movement; not by how others within reality describe it.
I do agree
That's the issue. You judge suggested information (want vs not want aka agreement vs disagreement); while ignoring perceived inspiration. Your free will of choice represents the response to balance (need/want)...not to the suggested choices (want vs not want) by others. Suggestion is parasitic to perception; which is what the few exploit to control the many.
Agreement vs disagreement among choices represents imbalance; hence in ignorance of choice responding to balance (momentum) caused by the natural order (flow) for the responding form within.
leading us to believe
To believe represents to consent by choice to suggestion by choice of others aka submission of free will to the will of others; who then gain the power to define; redefine and contradict whatever suggested one consented to believe.
Choice submitting to choice represents contract law aka RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew]; while the original bond under natural law represents offer (balance) response (choice).
to believe that these seeds are our own thoughts and opinions
The many think in words; because the suggestions of the few domesticated them to consent to it. Suggesting humans to respond to words is called civilizing them; while suggesting dogs to respond to words is called domesticating them. Perceived sound exists before suggested word and the parasitic few comprehend this; which is what allows them to wield all languages as spell-craft against the consenting many.
This is how they can strip natural connotations out (Latin to Pig-Latin aka English); while weaving inverted rhetoric into words; how they can communicate under multiple layers of numerology underneath the spoken languages; how they can hide suggested law systems (maritime admiralty law) underneath other suggested law systems (common law) by use of different meanings (legalese); how politicians can suggest endless fiction; while avoiding to consent to any choice to choice contracts within reality and so on.
Much of the older stuff disappears, but the internet is still huge. The problem is that most content is now centralized on plattorms like Twitter, Facebook, and Medium for long form content.
The conspiracy is how much the big engines like Google curate the search results, and how badly “content based marketing” and “search engine optimization” have polluted any given topic with trash information.
It’s 100% true. If you go Google and search for any word, it will say there are 1,000,000,000 results. If you scroll through the pages to the end, there are less than 1000 results for anything. How could this be? Even for something as simple and popular as pizza. There are less than 1000 results. Google has turned the internet a Potemkin village.
Edit: If they do not say it exists, it effectively doesn’t. This just exacerbates the issue one user spoke on about the internet just being copies of copies. You only get to see the shitty copy the powers in control want to be seen.
Google is just lying about the number of results to make their search engine seem more impressive. It's a limitation of the search engine, not the internet itself. I haven't checked, but I doubt google will ever return a result from a .win site and yet here we are existing. Google also isn't searching the Wayback Machine where there are 20 years of internet history saved. The Internet is not a potemkin village. Google search is though.
They also don't want others scraping their search database by loading 100,000 pages of results and don't want search optimizers to be able to see if their ranking went up from 12000 to 11000 because then they could reverse much of the algorithm.
Not like that matters though, for regular people Google search is like Disney World, totally fake and depicting a make-believe world.
This is actually called the "walled garden" model.
What is a Walled Garden? And why it is the strategy of Google, Facebook and Amazon Ads platform? https://medium.com/mediarithmics-what-is/what-is-a-walled-garden-and-why-it-is-the-strategy-of-google-facebook-and-amazon-ads-platform-296ddeb784b1
It's pretty much just fanfiction for what has painfully obvious and always known: shit gets worse over time until it collapses. The 'dead internet theory' is way more complex and exciting than the mundane truth of this reality.
When the internet was new, all content was original or at least a first occurrence on the net. Since 99.999% of people will never produce anything original, every new person online is just copying something, giving us worse and worse content as we makes copies of copies of copies...
And that's before the internet was even monetized. Once profits start motivating people online this amplifies infinitely. Now, people and companies with no actual desire to host content start creating websites seeking easy profits. And in come the low effort content creation tools and hosting, to allow everyone to quickly publish as much as possible, trying to strike gold.
And while the profit seeking continues in the background, the social media sites come along and turn the internet into a big popularity contest. Now people are doing something even more toxic than just looking for profits, they're hoping to be cool, hoping for personal validation from the masses online. The copy of a copy effect still in full swing.
Add to this the monetization of social media. We now have real people acting like fake people, fake people acting like real people, and fake people acting like fake people trying to trick real people to act like fake people, etc.
I could go on but I'm sure you already get the idea.
I'm not denying that the alphabet groups and corporations heavily manipulate and censor the internet, but in regards to this 'dead internet theory", we'd be stuck with this shitty internet without any help from them.
The only hope there is for the internet is for some brave souls to actually create some original content, or even better create a new medium. With the creation of original forms of content we can reset the chain of making copies of copies, if only for a little while.
There's definitely a lot of bots online, but I think it's more of the 'standard practice of online marketing.'
When it comes to spreading propaganda, and trying to push a consensus, I sadly believe that fewer fake accounts are needed to push herd mentality than one might think.
What you described is more like a 'swamp internet theory' where it smells like shit, you can't grow food or anything useful, and there's parasites everywhere.
The dead internet theory is that there's no actual people, that you're talking to a computer most of the time. For example, when Hillary fell down r/politics went from swamp to mountain river in minutes. People were engaging in civil debate and sounded like actual people. A couple hours later it went back instantly. If it were normal people there wouldn't be this on/off switch or pushed narrative.
The Hillary incident may have been AI or a room full of people with a script, but it was something controlled like that.
I don't think the entire internet is dead, but by now there should be some parts that are totally controlled by AI bots. You get a large place like reddit where you don't remember individuals and a bot can easily operate in that environment.
Yes, what I described is my opinion on what us really happening, opposed to the 'dead internet theory.'
You don't feel like there are AI bots anywhere? Or just that it's not completely AI bots?
A couple of observations related to factors that cause feedback loops without the need for central intervention:
Parasites driving their hosts into behaviors that allow their offspring to find new hosts.
I am talking about organisms living inside people.
The feedback loops lend themselves to social constructivism meaning that essentially things being true simply because they are true. This is the case for stocks s as you illustrate their valuations are interconnected and attached to the arbitrary starting state they were in prior to the establishment of automated trading
There's also archetypes which are essentially classes of narratives. Archetypes in turn are bounded by the meaning of language which only changes slowly. Hence, a recent focus on changing meaning of words.
Was going to also add that SEO was causing this way before the OP realizes on the proposed timeline. As of about 1998-1999 all websites were being funneled based upon their page rank which was essentially the degree to which they contributed to this feedback.
We can talk about it, as long as it is not based on the manifesto of a foot-faggot jerking off to little girls. SÄGE
This is a thing?
It's interesting. I've been living on the internet since the 1990's and it has changed a lot. I really miss the old internet - it seemed full of fascinating websites created by individuals. I remember typing things into a search engine (Webcrawler) and exploring just to see what I could find.
Now I go to a few of the sames sites every day and I never explore just for fun. Practically none of the sites I find in search engines are worth visiting ever again. It's all garbage. It may not feel empty, per se, just devoid of any real value. It feels like the search engines keep us from finding anything good - or that content has all dried up.
The Internet was designed to convince Boris Ivanoff to vote Yeltsin and mow down a parade in his Lada Granta.
Eventually they discovered you can use it to convince Darrell Brooks to vote Biden and mow down a parade in his Ford Escape.
imma go left-field and say the cabal TURDS get slightly firm when the idea of controlling the internet like they do mainstream media.
As form (life) within flow (inception towards death) the mind of form needs to respond to perceived inspiration (from within spirit) yet is tempted to want to respond to suggested information (from within form).
The suggested internet deceives one to ignore the perceived "moving" inspiration communicated to ones senses; for suggested information towards ones choice of consent.
The perceived internal net represents ones comprehension of all perceived inspiration through adaption to it; while resisting the temptation to fall for the suggested information by others.
Question what comes first...perceived sound or suggested words shaped by choice out of perceived sound? Nature communicates itself by moving everything within; which senses perceive as inspiration (from within spirit; from Latin spiro - "to breathe"). Breathing represents form (life) adapting to flow (inception towards death).
Everything suggested implies by the choice of others; hence information (from within form). Every suggested information requires your consent by choice to either want or not want the suggested information. Both want or not want (suggested information) represent the ignorance of need (perceived inspiration).
Before you can choose to want or not want what others suggest; you respond as choice to balance (need/want) under natural law (as defined by flow upon form).
In short...reality communicates itself through movement; not by how others within reality describe it.
That's the issue. You judge suggested information (want vs not want aka agreement vs disagreement); while ignoring perceived inspiration. Your free will of choice represents the response to balance (need/want)...not to the suggested choices (want vs not want) by others. Suggestion is parasitic to perception; which is what the few exploit to control the many.
Agreement vs disagreement among choices represents imbalance; hence in ignorance of choice responding to balance (momentum) caused by the natural order (flow) for the responding form within.
To believe represents to consent by choice to suggestion by choice of others aka submission of free will to the will of others; who then gain the power to define; redefine and contradict whatever suggested one consented to believe.
Choice submitting to choice represents contract law aka RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew]; while the original bond under natural law represents offer (balance) response (choice).
The many think in words; because the suggestions of the few domesticated them to consent to it. Suggesting humans to respond to words is called civilizing them; while suggesting dogs to respond to words is called domesticating them. Perceived sound exists before suggested word and the parasitic few comprehend this; which is what allows them to wield all languages as spell-craft against the consenting many.
This is how they can strip natural connotations out (Latin to Pig-Latin aka English); while weaving inverted rhetoric into words; how they can communicate under multiple layers of numerology underneath the spoken languages; how they can hide suggested law systems (maritime admiralty law) underneath other suggested law systems (common law) by use of different meanings (legalese); how politicians can suggest endless fiction; while avoiding to consent to any choice to choice contracts within reality and so on.
This is the way.
Learn to hear and follow your intuition.
Much of the older stuff disappears, but the internet is still huge. The problem is that most content is now centralized on plattorms like Twitter, Facebook, and Medium for long form content.
The conspiracy is how much the big engines like Google curate the search results, and how badly “content based marketing” and “search engine optimization” have polluted any given topic with trash information.