In a telling reflection of our digital zeitgeist, Oxford University Press has named “brain rot” as its Word of the Year. The term is defined as the “supposed deterioration of a person’s mental or intellectual state, especially viewed as a result of overconsumption of material (now particularly online content) considered to be trivial or unchallenging. Also: something characterized as likely to lead to such deterioration.”

The term was selected through analysis by Oxford lexicographers and a public vote by over 30,000 participants. It highlights growing concerns about the impact of consuming low-quality online content, excessive screen time, and information overload on our mental and cognitive well-being.

The first known use of the term was found in 1854, in Henry David Thoreau’s “Walden,” according to Oxford University Press. Thoreau critiqued society’s tendency to undervalue complex ideas, viewing it as a contributing factor to the overall decline in mental and intellectual effort.

“‘Brain rot’ speaks to one of the perceived dangers of virtual life, and how we are using our free time,” said Casper Grathwohl, President of Oxford Languages. “It feels like a rightful next chapter in the cultural conversation about humanity and technology.”

Despite its negative connotation, the expression has become a meme of sorts in internet culture, often used humorously to describe the numbing effect of hours spent “doomscrolling,” especially while sifting through superfluous information.

“Brain rot” gained significant traction on social media platforms, particularly on TikTok among Gen Z and Gen Alpha online communities, seeing a surge in use by 230 percent from the previous year, according to Oxford University Press. “These communities have amplified the expression through social media channels, the very place said to cause ‘brain rot’,” Grathwohl noted. “It demonstrates a somewhat cheeky self-awareness in the younger generations about the harmful impact of social media that they’ve inherited.”

However, not all online content is inherently bad. The internet can be a powerful tool for growth, community-building and access to diverse perspectives and creative artistic expression. 

Last year, Oxford’s own research acknowledged limitations in understanding the precise relationship between internet use and psychological effects. In a global study, Oxford researchers found there is little scientific evidence about the links between internet use, especially social media consumption, and negative psychological effects. “We looked very hard for a ‘smoking gun’ linking technology and well-being and we didn’t find it.’ stated psychologist Andrew Przybylski of the Oxford Internet Institute, in a press release.

The vague research findings are due in part to the scarcity of available user data from social media platforms. “Until these data can be transparently analyzed for the public good, the potential harmful effects of the Internet and other digital environments will remain unknown,” the researchers concluded. 

Oxford’s shortlist also included terms like “slop,” which underscores another growing concern related to the quality of digital content, particularly content generated by artificial intelligence, such as low-quality images and text produced by large language models. 

The phenomenon of low-quality content online shouldn’t be framed as solely a result of user-generated content. Attention economy models and the design of clickbait-driven recommendation algorithms also contribute to the intellectual decline of online discourse.

It seems that the English dictionary has arrived at a general consensus this past year: language and technology are intertwined in shaping our modern experience. As society grapples with the consequences of an information ecosystem that rewards immediate gratification over intellectual depth and substance, the rise of “brain rot” invites both reflection and action.