Is something on the web going viral? Or is it going nuclear?
When a story explodes on the Internet, we call it going viral. But is the term “going viral” really that accurate? To be honest, I hadn't really thought about it that much until I read an interesting article. From Tech Crunch.
According to techcrunch.com.
‘In other words, the disease model imperfectly represents the way those “infected” by a rumor actively propagate it, rather than simply passing it to someone near them at the grocery store. So, what natural process can we use instead? Scientists have proposed wildfires, swarms of insects, and collections of bouncing balls — but today’s stand-in from nature is … nuclear fission.’
When I think about it now, I think the term “going viral” is not referring to speed that a rumor propagates so much as that it goes everywhere. Especially when it's a negative story or rumor. But when we're talking about the Internet. You have to take into account the speed that things spread. And for that, I would put forward that, yes instead of calling it “going viral”, maybe it should be called “going nuclear.” (not nuculer)
When I was a kid, I remember seeing a demonstration on how nuclear fission works using ping pong balls and mouse traps. Check this video out.
That ping pong ball model of nuclear fission can be considered a very slowed down version of what actually occurs when something “goes nuclear”.
So, I guess the question is. Is the term “going viral” going to go away?
No, not likely. But to my way of thinking “going nuclear” is much more accurate.
Disinformation may 'go nuclear' rather than 'go viral,' researchers say | TechCrunch
A rumor propagation model based on nuclear fission | AIP Advances | AIP Publishing
Viral Colorado Movie Car Museum Opens Awesome New Home
Gallery Credit: Big Rob TSM
Viral TikTok Recipes with Cougar Gold Cheese
Gallery Credit: Reesha Cosby