The term is quite over used in my opinion, it is very often used in hyperbole. Whether it is in terms of popularity and driving traffic to a website or a threat said to break the Internet, it doesn’t seem to live up to the meaning of the term.
Gangnam Style - not quite the internet, but it got so many views that YouTube had to change the code used for displaying views count because it had more than 2,147,483,647 views (some of you may recognize it as the maximum number a signed 32 bit integer can store).
Did no one before that look at the schema and question the use of a signed int for a counter? That’s just bad design.
"No way a video gets more than 2 billion likes… "
It was a fairly reasonable guess back when they designed it, especially since you need an account to like a video.
That would mean close to 1/3 (~33%) of the world’s population "like"d the video.
Nowadays it’s only about 1/4 of the world’s population (25% for those who don’t get fractions).
It’d take massive amounts of bots to like a video that many times, and what would be the point?
Of course, they probably never imagined they’d scale quite this much.
It wasn’t the like counter they needed to change. It was the view counter.
The general population entering internet and companies trying to take over to monetize internet.
“Ruin” is different from “broke”
In my defence, internet was setup to share information, openly. That’s broken now.
It’s ruined as well, but you’re right, semantics is important.
