Black and blue or gold and white? How #thedress broke the Internet.

Is the dress blue and black or white and gold? How a A badly lit photograph of a $77 off-the-rack dress broke the Internet Friday, spawning arguments, memes and half-baked pseudo-scientific explanations over the viral frock's real colors.

A badly lit photograph of a $77 off-the-rack dress broke the Internet Friday, spawning arguments, memes and half-baked pseudo-scientific explanations over the viral frock's real colors.

By some reckonings, Buzzfeed invented "viral," but its deputy news director, Jon Passatino, appeared truly surprised by just how many clicks the dress generated. He tweeted that it broke the site's traffic records, with more than 670,000 people viewing the post simultaneously at one point and garnering 16 million hits in six hours.

Neetzan Zimmerman, formerly an editor at another viral content machine, Gawker, and widely considered an expert in virality, tweeted that the dress is a "viral singularity."

It appears to have started with a Tumblr post of the photo, headlined "what colors are this dress," and spread from there as those who saw white-and-gold engaged in pitched battles with the blue-and-black camp.

Even Singapore's Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, got caught up in the excitement, letting his followers know that he's in the white-and-gold camp. 

If a Mashable post is to be believed, in real life, the dress is a 50-quid offering from British retailer Roman Originals, and it's most decidedly blue and black.

UPDATE: BuzzFeed told CNBC the following when asked for comment on the success of The Dress post:

"The BuzzFeed post about THE DRESS is breaking the Internet and setting new traffic records for us. It drew more visitors to our site at one time than ever before. At one point tonight, more than 670,000 people were on BuzzFeed.comsimultaneously, 500K of those on mobile, and half of those reading the dress post."

—By CNBC.Com's Leslie Shaffer; Follow her on Twitter @LeslieShaffer1

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.