There seems to be a preconception by many archivist communities in the physical realm that the internet is an absolute method of preservation, the one true method to protect communities and histories. This is just not the case. This is a longstanding myth, one that was born out of the internet's creation, when
300MB was a mindblowing number to the world.
The truth is, the internet is
dying. Not only this, but it is dying at an exponential rate. Websites and platforms that existed just ten years ago are slowly getting their lights turned out. This is known as the “dead-internet theory”: a theory that shows that as links crash and it becomes more and more costly to maintain server rooms, the internet will slowly cease to keep up with maintaining its insurmountable mass.
For example, The amount of CO2 produced by Netflix per hour is just over
900g. The average US person produces
2.2kg of CO2, meaning that on average, much of the energy that we use through streaming platforms and social media contributes to our carbon footprint. Not just that, but TikTok’s servers use
2.63g of CO2 per minute. It is becoming environmentally unfeasible to use the internet as an archive, as large media companies continue to produce and share large amounts of content every day.
This is the main obstacle that many digital archivists face when encountering ways to preserve histories using the internet. For example, an entire catalogue of flash games that started in 1996 had recently been wiped from the internet, their links rendered unusable or overwritten, due to Adobe’s decision to discontinue the service. It is just unfeasible to expect that this platform, a home to many various websites and applications, has infinite room for more. It is as if Earth, a dying planet, sends its residents to another, equally dying planet, both caused by the man-made problem of over-consumption. Explore
this link to learn more about the history of flash, and its eventual collapse.
However, many issues arise when one thinks about the subjectivity of archiving the internet. The way that it is being archived now is
shaping particular narratives of specific platforms to fit with specific subcultures. There is a bias in the preservation of internet culture, simply because we cannot preserve everything and internet historians must pick and choose what sites are deemed "culturally relevant". This creates a particular sort of silencing which is damaging to the subcultures that have existed on the internet for decades. This goes against what many communities have used the internet for in the past: as a means of creating a platform for the underdogs of internet culture.
One major example of this narrative shift is with the “
Art Hoe” movement on tumblr. This was a cultural movement that arose in internet spaces, when aesthetic culture and fashion curation were in its early stages of formation. The movement was started by communities of colour on the internet, affirming their identities through creative expression. The movement was also associated with a particular strain of online social justice activism that was very popular on tumblr. However, when discussed years later in articles and online spaces, it seems that much of the politics surrounding the art hoe movement is erased entirely. It had been effectively whitewashed, until the
original creators had to come back years later to prove their relation to the movement. When left to the wrong communities, usually detached journalists and corporate media companies, the political histories of the internet tend to become sanitised and overwritten.