The Y2K computer bug was caused by computer systems using two digits to represent years, leading to concerns that systems would interpret the year 2000 as 1900.
Posted by The Dan Bongino Show, Checked
- Sources
- 4 support2 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 90%
The Dan Bongino ShowSep 16, 2026
Multiple primary and tier-1 sources state that the Y2K bug stemmed from programs storing years with two digits, so systems could read 2000 as 1900. The post's claim matches this, and the sources also show that the feared failures largely did not occur, which the claim does not dispute.
Our two reads of who says this, and how, disagree, so it counts as the post's own claim.
What was said
… Justin, you're not even old enough. Were you born when? Were you born? 2002. He doesn't even remember Why two k, folks in the chat. Yes, you remember it? No, you don't remember Why two k. The clocks were gonna flip from 1999 to 2000. They were only two digits, and they were like, what are we gonna do? They're gonna think it's 1900 instead of 2000. Some of you may be hearing this for the first time. Remember, we were all gonna die. They were guaranteed the economy's gonna collapse, the financial system, your stock values are referred to it. Yes, yeah, look at it, chat. Yes, yeah, you remember this. …
The Dan Bongino Show · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. A GovInfo congressional report explains that programmers represented four-digit years with two digits, so dates after 1999 were treated as 1900 or 1901.[2]
Supports. A Texas House Research Organization report states that the two-digit shorthand meant a computer would interpret references to the year 2000 as 1900.[3]
Supports. The Calvin University case study and Wikipedia both describe the two-digit year storage as making 2000 indistinguishable from 1900 or causing computers to misread '00' as 1900.[4][5]
Context. Reuters and Britannica note that the feared failures did not materialize on January 1, 2000, which does not affect the claim's account of the cause.[1][6]
Context. The extracted claim is a faithful paraphrase of the passage's two-digit and 1900-versus-2000 content; the post does not add a different figure or scope.
Sources
6 sources: 1 fact-checker, 3 primary, 2 not rated
- 1Y2K: The good, the bad and the crazyreuters.com · fact-checker · cited for: context
- 2www.govinfo.gov › content › pkgInvestigating the Impact of the Y2K Problem--Understanding ...govinfo.gov · primary source · cited for: supports
- 3The Year 2000 Computer Problemhro.house.texas.gov · primary source · cited for: supports
- 4Case Studies: The Y2K Computer Bugcs.calvin.edu · primary source · cited for: supports
- 5Year 2000 problem - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org · not rated · cited for: supports
- 6Y2K bug | Definition, Hysteria, & Factsbritannica.com · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post