I suspect there will still be online interactions with humans, just more interactions with bots. Unfortunately, it’s we humans behind the mess. Even if we pass laws to stop it (or even forced labels of “I’m a bot” on bot accounts), some people won’t play by the rules. So the change is going to happen. We can try to persuade the public, but we know how well that works:

So what do you propose be done about it?

So change means “dying”? So every time a tadpole evolves into a frog, a tadpole dies? Should we have protest signs that read, “FROGS KILL TADPOLES! DOWN WITH FROGS”?

Bots are increasing. But the Internet is not dead/dying, just changing. Many of the “The 10 bots are posting a total of 1000 times a day.” are repost bots merely parroting human generated content.

I wonder, though, if this will cause the scrapers to be impacted by the reposters or other AI generated content.

But is the Internet dying? The thing it doesn’t say is if the human participation is dwindling.

To keep it simple, I’ll work with small numbers. Imagine there are 10 humans online. Now imagine 1 bot on online. Bots are 9% (1 in 11) of this imaginary online community. A year later, those same 10 humans are still online, but there are now 10 bots online; the bots are 50% of the community. This statistic can lead you to think there is less human participation when nothing happened to the humans. The difference is the raw number of bots. This is what I believe is happening, about the same number of humans, just an increasing number of bots, scraping, posting, etc.

X/Twitter is dying because of mismanagement.

Do you know how to tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.

“Hi! I’m Clippy! It looks like you’re trying to play Halo. Let’s take you to the Store so you can purchase more DLCs…”

But I just want to play Halo…

“Yes, but the DLCs will make it better!”

But I’m happy with what I already have.

“Oh, look, here’s the store!”