Category: Dead Internet Theory (DIT)

Dead Internet Theory (DIT) explores the idea that the open, human-driven web is being steadily replaced by automated content, algorithmic feeds, corporate platforms, abandoned websites, SEO spam, bots, and machine-generated noise.

This category investigates the evidence behind that idea without treating every claim as fact. We look at vanished communities, once-massive websites turned into digital ghost towns, bot networks, content farms, spam empires, dead links, abandoned forums, artificial engagement, platform consolidation, algorithm-driven culture, and the strange remains of the older internet.

Some of it is conspiracy theory. Some of it is ordinary technological change. And some of it is plainly visible to anyone who remembers what the web used to feel like.

These articles document the transformation of the internet from a sprawling collection of strange, independent places into something increasingly centralized, automated, commercialized, and difficult to distinguish from its own simulations.

Welcome to the archaeological layer of the modern web.

Posted on by

Gather: the trajectory of a discussion network built around adult conversation

Gather launched in November 2005 with a demographic pitch: a social network for adults. Tom Gerace, a Boston entrepreneur who had already founded the affiliate-marketing company Be Free, watched the breakaway services of the day chase teenagers. Gather would court the audience public radio had grown: older, educated, interested in news, books, and culture, and willing to trade arguments rather than party photographs.

The ambition drew media money and partnerships early. American Public Media became an investor and partner, and later described Gather as a social-media service aimed at adults, where members connected around politics, books, cooking, travel, and other interests. An American Public Media description from 2007 said the site had more than 240,000 members and over a million monthly visitors. It was a market the youth-oriented networks were not built around.

Conversation first

Gather presented itself as discussion ahead of networking. Members published essays and short posts, rated one another’s work, and commented across topics from politics to cooking. Gerace’s line was that Gather would do for user-driven media what eBay did for user-driven retail: give a writer a built-in audience instead of a lonely corner of the blogosphere. Trade press described it as “MySpace for a literate audience.” A 2006 MediaPost profile also documented how heavily Gather’s advertising strategy relied on members’ reading, writing, rating, and other behavior. The conversation was community activity and advertising signal at the same time.

Paid to participate

Participation carried a price. Members earned Gather Points for posting and interacting, redeemable for gift cards, and the top writers could earn cash. From 2010, the Gather News Channel paid selected members to write short articles, with extra money tied to page views. It worked well enough: by early 2009 Gather reported roughly half a million members, around 90 percent of them over 25, and more than a million unique monthly visitors. Starbucks chose Gather as an advertising partner specifically for that adult demographic.

Investors matched the enthusiasm. Jim Manzi, the Lotus founder, backed the company early; Allen & Co. joined a January 2006 round; and that November Hearst, McGraw-Hill, and Pilot House Ventures put in $10 million, calling Gather “the leader in social media for grown-ups.”

Sold and emptied

The ownership trail was messier than a single sale. SEC filings show that Health Guru Media bought Gather.com from Skyword in September 2012. Kitara Media later acquired Health Guru Media in December 2013. In Kitara’s accounts, Gather appeared as a domain asset with revenue-linked royalty obligations to Skyword — a strikingly different description from the community of writers who had built the site.

The original social network eventually went offline. Members lost a common home for their writing, comments, and connections; some found one another again through reunion groups and other social networks. What had begun as an adult discussion community ended its corporate life as one asset inside a chain of advertising and media businesses.

What the trajectory leaves behind

Gather’s run shows how an adult-conversation network can come apart. The service genuinely rewarded contribution and demonstrated that an older audience would write, rate, and discuss for recognition and small rewards. But the corporate records eventually describe Gather in the language of domains, revenue and acquisition accounting rather than writers and discussion. A contributor economy can keep conversation alive while it runs; it does not guarantee that the social record will remain central after ownership changes. What remains of Gather is scattered among old captures, rescued essays, and former members who carried the relationships elsewhere.

Posted on by

Posterous: what happens to a publishing community after an acquisition

Posterous made publishing as close to sending an email as anyone had managed. You signed up, got a posting address, and wrote to it; attached photos arranged themselves into a gallery, and a couple of keystrokes cross-posted the result to Twitter, Facebook, or Flickr. Launched in May 2008 out of Y Combinator, the service attracted contributors who wanted a thought on the web in about thirty seconds, without learning a dashboard or picking a host. It grew audacious: in 2010 Posterous shipped a long list of import tools and openly pitched itself at people using competing publishing and sharing services.

An acquihire does not buy a platform

On March 12, 2012, Twitter announced it was buying Posterous, which almost everyone read as a way to absorb the team. At the time users were told Spaces would “remain up and running without disruption,” with migration tools promised. That promise held in the sense that nothing changed for almost a year. Then, on February 15, 2013, founder Sachin Agarwal announced the end: posterous.com and its mobile apps would turn off on April 30 so the team could “focus 100% of our efforts on Twitter.”

Writers had roughly two months to download everything. The backup tool at posterous.com/#backup packed posts as HTML plus their photos, videos, and documents into a zip file, and the downloads stayed available until May 31. The community had built itself inside a service whose sale value turned out to be the engineers, not the product. A home port for people who just wanted to write was a headcount asset to its acquirer, and the same ad campaign that once lured writers off “fading” platforms was no protection when the tables turned.

What the writers carried out

The exit was organized, which is more than most shutdowns manage. The notice listed WordPress and Squarespace importers, and a third party named Justmigrate offered Tumblr moves. Early transfers mostly worked: Chris Nadeau, formerly a featured Posterous blogger, reported that the WordPress importer brought everything over, comments included, in a few clicks. Gaps remained — co-founder Garry Tan said the WordPress importer lost document and audio files and shrank large images, with fixes later.

Tan and co-founder Brett Gibson did more than hand out advice. They built Posthaven, a $5-a-month refuge whose importer preserved URLs and comments and whose public pledge was blunt: “We’ll never get acquired. We’ll never shut down.” Posthaven reached public beta in March 2013 and financial sustainability by September, and it is still running today.

So an acquisition answers the ownership question without consulting anyone who wrote there. Posterous’s community was luckier than most: it had a working export path, and co-founders willing to charge money for permanence. Whether writers moved to WordPress, Tumblr, Squarespace, or Posthaven, the work traveled as data in a zip file. What stayed behind — the galleries, the post-by-email address, the friendly URLs — is a ghost city, now preserved mainly in the Internet Archive.

Posted on by

Vox: a blogging community organized around controlled sharing

Vox launched on October 26, 2006 as Six Apart’s attempt to catch people who found public blogging intimidating. The service grew out of Project Comet, which company president Mena Trott had unveiled at the DEMO conference a year earlier. Its selling point was not another publishing interface but an audience control: every post came with a visibility setting, so writing online always meant choosing who would read it.

A privacy dial on every post

Vox treated a blog as a private conversation with a dial rather than a public stage. Posts could go to everyone, to your circle of contacts — the site called that list your neighborhood — or to no one but you. The posting screen stayed deliberately simple while pulling in rich media: you could drop in books from Amazon, videos from YouTube, or photos from Flickr. The result was half blogging platform, half small social network.

Boundaries were the point

Controlled sharing was not a bolt-on; it was the pitch. At launch, TechCrunch reported that Trott had been saying for some time that the future of blogging lay in “small, closed groups communicating with each other online.” The boundaries mattered because they made a certain kind of writing possible. Investor David Hornik, quoted when Vox shut down, put it plainly: “Finally I have a place where I can post pictures and video of my kids without concern about who is looking at them.” Family snaps, mundane days, half-formed thoughts — the material public blogging punishes — had a home.

A shutdown with no successor

On September 2, 2010, Six Apart announced that Vox would close at the end of the month. Members could publish until September 15, export their posts for TypePad and their photos for Flickr, and then watch the lights go out on September 30 at 3:20 p.m. PDT. Later that same month VideoEgg said it would acquire Six Apart, creating SAY Media, and the merged company had no room for a small, unprofitable blog platform. By then ComScore counted Vox at about 5.7 million monthly visits, and the coverage — Sarah Lacy of TechCrunch called it “a clean, well-lit place” — was sad rather than angry. The community’s structure made the closure final. A platform organized around private audiences has no public archive, and a private neighborhood has no way to pack itself and move.

The name went to a news site

The address did not stay quiet long. SAY Media sold vox.com to Vox Media in 2013, and the domain reopened as the news site Vox. The posts and the friendships stayed buried. Vox shows the bargain at the heart of controlled sharing: precise, comfortable audiences make a site feel safe, but a community that exists only behind visibility filters leaves nothing behind that can outlive the company that hosted it.

Posted on by

Open Diary: closure, return, and the limits of rebuilding personal history

Open Diary launched on October 20, 1998, with features so common now that they are invisible. Within months readers could post comments directly under entries, and a Favorites page pooled the latest posts of everyone you followed — a feed before feeds had a name. Later entries could be closed to friends only. The site’s real discovery was social: a diary read by someone specific stops being a broadcast.

The diary as a relationship

Writing on Open Diary was public by default but intimate in practice. Members kept diaries for a regular cast of readers who answered in comments; being added to a Favorites list was the closest thing to commitment. The formula worked. More than 10,000 diaries arrived in the first six months, and the site eventually hosted over five million, counting 561,000 active diaries from 77 countries in October 2008.

Bruce Ableson’s closing note explained what the numbers meant. He recalled a gay member who found acceptance in the community when that acceptance, in his words, “saved his life,” and a New Yorker who stopped seeing fellow subway riders as faceless. The sentiment is easy to mock and hard to dismiss: the writing mattered because someone was reading.

Closure

On January 28, 2014, Ableson announced the site would shut down within two weeks, and on February 7 it went offline. The archived homepage shows the last quiet days: 487,776 diaries, 4,418 diarists online, readers trading goodbyes and swapping Prosebox handles in the latest entries. The message urged members to download their diaries while noting “there’s not some large corporation with deep pockets” behind the service.

The records that survived are uneven. Public diaries left fragments in the Wayback Machine, but the friends-only entries — the heart of the platform — were never crawlable, and Archive Team ultimately classed the original site as lost.

What the return could not rebuild

In January 2018 Open Diary came back as a subscription service, with a reclaim process for former members who wanted access to old diaries. For returning members, old writing could be restored to an account. What a relaunch cannot rebuild is the readership a diary accumulates over years. A thinner crowd stayed for eight more years, but a room reassembled around the old writing is not the same room.

The second Open Diary lasted until February 28, 2026. Prosebox documented both the extended closure deadline and an importer for Open Diary exports, giving members one more route out before the servers went dark. Personal history has two halves: the words, which were partly recoverable, and the people who read them, which were not.

Posted on by

Xanga: the transition from accessible diaries to a smaller paid community

Xanga began in 1999 as a place to share book and music reviews and, within a few years, became one of the most popular spots on the web for writing your life down. In June 2006 it ranked as the third-largest social network in the United States, behind only MySpace and Facebook, with roughly 27 million users and a following that skewed heavily toward teens. What happened afterward is not a simple shutdown story. Xanga survived by becoming something much smaller, and its 2013 relaunch put continued blogging behind a paid membership.

A free diary service that got big

Xanga moved into blogging while the word was still new. Anyone could register, write entries, upload photos, and — the feature that made the place stick — subscribe to other members’ sites. Subscriptions, originally called “Sites I Read,” turned a list of diaries into a single, always-updating reading feed. Blogrings grouped people by interest, and a quick “Pulse” miniblog let members post short updates from a phone. Paid Premium upgrades, offered since May 2001, added photo space, skins, and ad-free pages. Writing itself stayed free, and that openness is what built the audience.

The 2013 fundraising relaunch

By 2013 the crowd was gone and the money was thin. With the lease on its hosting facility about to end, the team laid out two doors: shut down and hand out archives, or raise $60,000 by July 15 and rebuild Xanga on open-source software. The drive came up just short of its goal, and the team went ahead anyway. Xanga 2.0 launched that September on WordPress. Xanga’s own relaunch page says the team had prepared downloadable archives for roughly two million blogs and migrated eligible users onto the new system.

What the paywall changed

There was a catch. Hosting a blog on the new Xanga required a yearly blogging membership of $48. Keeping an account to read, subscribe, and comment stayed free, and members could earn a membership by volunteering or gift one to a friend. The change protected the budget but raised a wall in front of the thing that had built the site — writing. Longtime members noticed. Commenting on the relaunch announcement, people called the new Xanga “a gated community” and warned that the “huge gate at the front” would keep newcomers away. The fee is trivial for a committed core and a barrier for everyone else, and in a free blogging marketplace it only had to nudge the hesitant toward WordPress.com or Tumblr.

What survived

Underestimating the survivors is easy. Xanga outlived the collapse. The site remains online in its WordPress-based form. The people who stayed keep writing in a quiet corner of the web, for each other.

Not dead, just smaller

The Xanga story shows that accessibility and community pull in different directions. Free, frictionless writing is what turned private diaries into a 27-million-person town. Subscriptions are what kept a remnant of that town lit. A community can survive on a small base of paying members who care enough to stay; it cannot grow that way. Xanga traded the possibility of growth for the certainty of continuing, and both halves of that deal are visible on the site.

Posted on by

LiveJournal: language, ownership, and the fragmentation of a blogging community

LiveJournal did not look like a social network when Brad Fitzpatrick launched it on April 15, 1999. He wanted a way to keep his high school friends posted on his life, so he built a journal with a friends page—one stream of everyone he followed. That single design choice turned a pile of personal diaries into a community.

The friends page and the comm

Every account was a journal, and the friends list worked like a reading list. Because the relationship did not have to be mutual, following someone was closer to subscribing than to confirming a contact. Threaded comments let arguments and conversations run for years under a single entry. The site also hosted group journals called communities, or “comms”: members could post under rules set by maintainers. Fandom, hobby scenes, support groups, and local communities organized there. The result was less one site with one audience than a collection of scenes that happened to share a login and a codebase. Language mattered enormously. Russia became one of LiveJournal’s defining centers; when SUP bought the service in 2007, contemporary reporting said Russia accounted for about 28 percent of its global user base.

An ownership chain that ended in Moscow

Fitzpatrick sold his company, Danga Interactive, to Six Apart in January 2005. Six Apart licensed the brand to Russia’s SUP Media in August 2006 and sold the service outright in December 2007. Russia had already turned ЖЖ (ZheZhe), the local name for LiveJournal, into a word for blogging itself. At the sale the Russian side held roughly 700,000 journals, about 300,000 of them active.

Infrastructure widened the split. In December 2016 LiveJournal moved its servers into Russia. In April 2017 it introduced terms governed by Russian law, including restrictions on political solicitation and content covered by Russian regulation. Freedom House documented the server move and new terms, along with users’ concerns that the rules could affect political and LGBT expression.

Where the writing continued

Dreamwidth shows what the community could carry elsewhere. Built by former LiveJournal staff on a fork of LiveJournal’s open-source code, it developed explicit migration tools: Dreamwidth still documents how LiveJournal journals and communities can be imported, including posts and comments. The 2017 terms drove a visible wave of English-language fandom users and communities toward that escape route.

LiveJournal itself did not die. Russian-language journals stayed active, and the old entries remain online. The network did not shut down; it divided along the lines it had always had—language and ownership. A platform can lose its center without losing its people, and here the people had already sorted themselves by language long before the servers moved. The ghost is not an empty website but a public that was always several publics at once, and stopped pretending otherwise.

Posted on by

Slashdot: the changing role of a once-central technology discussion hub

Slashdot went online in 1997 as Rob Malda’s technology-news side project, carrying the slogan “News for nerds, stuff that matters.” Slashdot’s own 20th-anniversary history traces how that small site grew into much more than a news page. For a decade it was the closest thing the internet had to a town square for engineers, sysadmins, and open-source loyalists — the place a technology story went to be argued about in public. The readership treated every technology claim as a leaky sink to be torn apart in full view, which is why a front-page story rarely went unexamined.

A front page run by its readers

What made the site central was mechanics, not charisma. Anyone could submit a story, while Slashdot’s editors selected what reached the front page and wrote the introductions. The crowd’s control operated most visibly in the comments. Slashdot’s moderation system periodically gives selected users points they can spend raising or lowering comment scores, with labels such as “insightful,” “interesting,” “troll,” and “flamebait.” Karma is one factor in who receives moderation access, not a simple rank that permanently grants authority. Historically, meta-moderation added another layer of review over moderation decisions. The system worked well enough that being “slashdotted” became a technical phenomenon of its own, a site that got linked from Slashdot’s front page suddenly collapsing under the traffic. Readers shaped what appeared, ranked it, and argued about it, all on one page.

Reduced centrality, not a shutdown

That position did not survive competing for it. Reddit arrived in 2005 with a simpler vote-up front page, Hacker News in 2007 for the same audience with stricter norms, and social feeds scattered the rest of the conversation onto platforms where nothing was ranked by named votes. Slashdot’s own lifecycle tracked a long series of owners: acquired by VA Linux in 1999, folded into the Geeknet renames, sold with SourceForge to career-site owner Dice Holdings in 2012 for $20 million, and sold again to BIZX in 2016. Comment volume and notoriety peaked years ago. Ownership changes are the easy story to tell, but participation patterns changed the site’s actual role. The anonymous crowd no longer sets the agenda the way it once did, editors assemble most front-page posts from press coverage, and the moderation system that defined the site now serves a much smaller readership.

Still, Slashdot is plainly not abandoned. Slashdot’s current front page continues to turn over with new stories, submissions and scored comment threads. Reduced centrality is not the same thing as death: the community is smaller, older, and no longer the gatekeeper of technology news, but it never stopped doing what it did. The way to tell a fading site from a ghost town is to check whether the residents are still arguing.

Posted on by

Digg: community rupture around a major product redesign

Digg launched in 2004 on a promise that made the community itself the product. Anyone could submit a link, and the crowd decided what was worth seeing by voting: a story that collected enough “diggs” climbed toward the front page, while a “bury” vote pushed it back down. No one at Digg had to curate the homepage, because tens of thousands of users did it for free. “Give the power back to the people” was part of the founding pitch, and for a while the mechanics lived up to it.

The crowd ran the front page

Members submitted web pages, voted them up or down, and the results fed a public ranking. The most-dugg stories reached the front page, where even more people could click through to the original source. That made the site a shaping force: a story could blow up because Digg users put it there. Power users, people who submitted early and often and appeared able to move the front page on their own, accumulated real influence, and the site both relied on and worried about them. Bury buttons let ordinary members police quality too, until organized “bury brigades” — coordinated vote-downs of particular stories — became part of Digg’s folklore.

A redesign that changed the deal

In late August 2010, Digg replaced the whole machine at once. Version 4 dropped the bury button in favor of a “hide” button, temporarily killed the upcoming stories page, and made the default view a following-based feed called “My News” that encouraged connecting Facebook and Twitter accounts. Submissions were joined by newsroom pages and the prominence of a handful of large publishers, and some users found their histories mangled. To members who had shaped the site for years, the contract had changed: their votes still mattered for individual stories, but the essential levers were gone.

The reaction was immediate. Users flooded the front page with links to rival aggregators and demanded the old Digg back, as the Guardian reported within days of the launch. Founder Kevin Rose responded with a blog post promising to “release, iterate, repeat,” but the damage was financial as well as emotional. Hitwise measured United States visits down 26 percent and United Kingdom visits down 34 percent within a month of the redesign. Digg restored the bury button and other favorites soon after, but polls and comment threads showed the trust was not coming back with them.

Who owned the community

The episode was a lesson in the limits of user power. Digg had built its value on the idea that the audience decided what appeared, then discovered that deciding what appears is not the same as deciding how the site is governed. When the company changed the underlying rules without a say from the people who wrote them into existence, the users’ only real vote was their feet. They left in large numbers, most of them to Reddit, where links, votes, and a front page still worked the way Digg’s used to. Reddit overtook Digg in traffic late in 2011, and in July 2012 Betaworks bought the brand and technology for about $500,000.

That might look like the end of a ghost town, but the communities became more complicated than the headline. The site passed through several owners over the next decade, and in March 2025 founder Kevin Rose and Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian bought Digg back and began another relaunch. The original voters are scattered, yet the arrangement they built — submission, discussion, and community-determined ranking — turned out to be portable and durable. What died in 2010 was not community-driven aggregation but a specific product in which the people supplied the content while the company reserved the right to change the deal.

Posted on by

Delicious: the dispersal of collaborative bookmarking communities

Delicious asked very little of its users. Save a link, slap a word or two on it, move on. But because those labels were public by default, a personal filing habit produced something collaborative: anyone who visited a tag’s page saw what the crowd had saved under that word, newest first, with nobody asking for permission or a profile. It was invented, as many useful things are, out of annoyance — Joshua Schachter built a spreadsheet and then a script to track links he kept for the Memepool community, and launched del.icio.us publicly in September 2003. The site gave “tag” its modern meaning on the web and made that word a small engine of discovery.

Tagging made bookmarks a shared instrument

The magic was that the system ran on people’s self-interest and exposed the residue. A programmer saving a page under “ruby” was doing chores for herself, but the tag view turned that errand into a recommendation to every stranger who looked. “Popular” and “recent” pages surfaced what a wide web of readers were collectively paying attention to, and following another user let you sail through one informed person’s collection as a browseable reading list. Bookmarks read as quiet endorsements, so the community was effectively a very large, very casual peer-review board. Before recommendation feeds existed, the crowd’s bookmarks were the recommendation feed. By the end of 2008 Delicious claimed more than 5.3 million users and 180 million unique saved URLs, and the service’s role as a discovery instrument looked settled.

What exporting could not carry away

Then ownership did the damage no feature could. Yahoo bought Delicious in December 2005 and mostly let it sit. In December 2010 a leaked Yahoo slide listed the service under “sunset”, and panicked users began exporting their collections and defecting, most visibly to the leaner Pinboard. Yahoo clarified it would sell rather than kill the site, and in April 2011 it was sold to AVOS, the new venture of YouTube’s founders. The relaunch that September shipped without core features, deleted the support forum, and replaced community discussion with an email address; “stacks”, a Pinterest-style grouping feature added later that year, was converted back into tags by August 2012. Science, Inc. took over in May 2014, Delicious Media in 2016, and in June 2017 Pinboard bought the shrinking thing for about $35,000 and made the site read-only effective June 15. Ceglowski said he bought it in part so it “wouldn’t disappear from the web“.

Users were still able to export their bookmarks — the export tool that a previous owner had disabled was switched back on days before the freeze. A dump of your own URLs is exactly what it sounds like, though. It did not preserve the network those bookmarks had been nodes in: the live tag pages, the “popular” list, the feeds of users you trusted, or the shared context of who saved what, under which words, with which notes. The public record of a community’s attention could not be zipped. The site survives as a read-only archive — del.icio.us now greets visitors as “a ghost, haunting the internet“, a museum of links past where you can still log in and recover your old data. The corpus remains; the collaboration does not. Users dispersed to Pinboard, Pocket, and newer services, and the dispersed part that never came along was the shared instrument that made bookmarking feel social.

Posted on by

StumbleUpon: the end of a shared culture of web wandering

StumbleUpon’s whole point was that you should not have to know what you wanted. Registered in late 2001 by four students at the University of Calgary, it grew into a browser toolbar with a single Stumble button. Pick a few categories — say, astronomy, photography, and bad puns — and each click opened a page chosen from what people like you had recommended. Camp described it in a 2007 interview as a hybrid that blended “collaborative human input with machine learning techniques, so users could discover great content they wouldn’t have thought to search for.”

Search assumed you knew the target

That was its bet against Google. Search was excellent when you knew exactly what you were looking for; StumbleUpon was for everything else. It borrowed the metaphor of channel surfing — surf directly between relevant content instead of searching, scanning, clicking, and going back. The service held nearly 500 topics, and your picks over time tuned the stream. Serendipity was a feature, not a side effect. Camp said he designed it so people could “stumble upon” sites recommended by like-minded people “[r]ather than presented with the most popular sites for a given keyword.”

Recommendations were a collective act

The engine ran on judgment. Thumbs-up on a page entered it into the database and shared it with others of similar taste; thumbs-down taught the system what to avoid. Users could also submit pages directly, add reviews, and friend the people whose taste they trusted. By 2007, Camp reported, 2 million members were stumbling about 5 million times a day and adding 16,000 new URLs daily. Every user was a curator, and the crowd’s taste — not an algorithm’s template — decided what surfaced.

The feed model replaced wandering

The slide was gradual. eBay bought the service for $75 million in 2007 and returned it to its founders in 2009. Then, chasing Pinterest and the social feed, StumbleUpon redesigned around an Activity stream, Trending pages, and a “StumbleDNA” profile that told you how much of you was tech. The wandering engine became another personalized feed, and traffic steadily declined.

The shutoff

In May 2018, Camp announced StumbleUpon would fold into Mix, a new discovery app from his studio Expa. Over the years it had delivered more than 40 million users personal content, serving up nearly 60 billion stumbles. On June 30, 2018, accounts were transitioned, and the site was gone. StumbleUpon.com still points toward Mix, which remains a web-discovery service built around finding and saving links from across the web. It is a descendant rather than a restoration of the old Stumble button and its public thumbs-up culture. What ended was the particular collective act: the human ratings that once helped steer where the rest of us wandered next.