The Newest Victim
I don't pretend to know how to run a website. I've been running one on and off for the past five years, but the most I ever saw was 700 members. Then I stopped paying attention and the members got angry at me for not being there. However, following this HD-DVD story nonsense, I'm done with Digg.
To Digg:
Surely, this comes as a shock to both of us. It wasn't very long ago that I was raving about how cool your effect was on our site, crushing it, squeezing the life out of it 500-MySQL connections at a time. But now, things have changed, let me try to explain what happened (from my point of view, of course).
The other day, Will came in raving about the encryption key for HD-DVDs being decrypted and now publicly available. To me this really meant nothing since I have no interest in high-definition DVDs, and it perpetuates the theory that if you give a bunch of nerdy dudes enough time, they can undo any sort of electronic protection you put on anything.
That being said, that finally happened.
So to decrypt files you can use this key. Of course, for Joe Consumer this means little to nothing. My parents aren't at home right now creating home-made decryption plug-ins for their DVD players. But for what it was, this became the moment where Digg jumped the shark.
Stories that were about the key or had the key in it were being posted on Digg. These posts were then being deleted by Digg administrators. This infuriated the Digg audience (you know, the millions of random guys that know nothing about business), which prompted a full-scale revolt on the site posting the key over and over again, abusing the system to get their stories all over the site (because no algorithm could have seen this coming).
And then, all those stories were deleted.
At this point, I was on Digg's side. If something violates the terms of service of your website, you should be allowed to step in and make an executive decision. But what they did next broke the bank for me.
Kevin Rose (a founder of Digg and a God-among-men in the Digg community) reposted the key and told people to Digg it up. He said, "You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be... If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying."
This, to me, simply is not an acceptable attitude to take. This site has moved out of your garage and you now employ many people that build an apparent living off of this site. This is no longer an experiment in social networking. People see Digg as one of the cornerstones to this "Web 2.0" nonsense, and now in its moment of truth it cowers to a bunch of random, angry nobodies that are complaining they weren't allowed to post information that is considered to be sensitive information by those that created it?
[We can argue the merits and downfalls of DRM, but that's another blog for another time.]
So where do you go from here, Digg? How can you ever take down any story in the future in regards to its topic, sensitivity or content? You've pretty much given people a blank check for posting anything, and "anything" on the web is a huge word.
Giving people the option to post news-worthy stories was a good cause in the beginning, but let's face it: Digg's been going downhill since version three came out. There's a reason that we have structured media: it's because we, the general populous, cannot be trusted to do it ourselves. That saying about bad apples spoiling the bunch comes to mind. There's always going to be someone there to ruin things, you have to account for this. You have to be prepared when there's a mutiny.
As for websites, Digg should have set who they were and what they were going to do. This change of stance midstream is a worrisome trend that I can no longer support. If the terms are just suggestions, why bother having them at all? (And really, does anyone ever read those things?)
So, the list of websites that I refuse to support/visit/use doubles in size: MySpace, Digg.
You're in odd company, Digg. I've deleted your bookmarks and I now cheer for your demise.
You know, when it comes up in discussion.
Later Digg.
Comments
The Fred Ban, ouch. Here's the kicker for me, I don't Digg. I think fundamentally you are on to something. Don't have terms of service if you're going to bend them when you are all of the sudden flooded with violators. Bring down the Ban Hammer Fred, do what Digg should have done.
hahahaah 5 dollars says you'll still secretly Digg...but I guess we'll never know, will we? muahah
Nah, I'm off of it. Unlike some people mentioned in my blog, my stances don't waiver.
**RANT ALERT**
The most baseless overreaction I had ever witnessed was the MPAA trying to censor a hex code, but that was only until I stepped into this tar pit of a blog.
First off, as for as the censorship of the HD-DVD hex code, somebody, even if it's Digg, has to stand up against these creeps. I think we're forgetting that we're talking about a string of characters here, not a program with which to use the code or an actually copy of an HD-DVD. The idea that this string needs to be removed is far more dangerous than the string itself. If your predicted demise of Digg comes true, it will only bring more attention to the idiocy of the situation at hand.
Second, Digg was supposed to replace traditional media? I thought Digg was a place to go to get crazy Linux stories/Daily Show videos/Flash Games that I couldn't find on CNN. I think you'd be stretching to even call it a supplement.
Third, you imply that Digg has a responsibility to it's employees to keep the company strong, and the move made by Kevin Rose negates any hope they have of a secure future, yet your boycott of Digg is doing the EXACT same thing. Personally, I don't think that Digg will go under, as there is no incentive for anyone to sue them. Last time I checked, Digg was making very little, if any, money.
Contrary, to the tone of this comment, I don't really disagree with a lot of what you say, but I'd hate to see my prediction, that this will be the most unjustified Fredcott ever unleashed on society, come true. Save these things for more hippie restaurants instead of stupid social news sites that have given you months and months of random and carefree enjoyment.
By the way, have you heard of scoop?
I stopped visiting scoop once it started pandering to the ACLU.
First things first, scoop for life.
But since you took all this time to reply, I'll take some of my time to reply to you.
Point 1: The censorship of this code is not what I have a problem about. Point-of-views on freedom of speech are yet another blog. You should write that one.
Point 2: Digg was meant to be a site that delivered user-powered content. It was the first (major) system that allowed people to be in control of what was published, which I feel is a mistake, I've already said that. Regardless of that, there should be standards of quality to be met on the content that is to be published by the site itself. (This falls inline with the ideals of legitimacy of any blog out there, should blogs be able to be cited? Should these people be held accountable for publishing inaccuracies or hear-say as fact? Does popular opinion warrant something ok to be spread?)
Point 3: I believe that all employers have a responsibility of providing its employees with compensation at least equal to the quality and quantity of work accomplished. This includes payment of funds for works completed and the goal of continued prosperity for the company's future.
We both know the devastating history Fred'cotts have played on both businesses and individuals alike. You make many points, and I respect that.
And again: go scoop!
Welcome to the club...
I gave up on Digg a long time ago, mostly due to the "LOL OMGZ [some topic] is the most awesomest cool thing evar" stories that seem to be the bread and butter of the site.
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Amen Errol.
And Nick (a. k. a. "The People"): very funny.
I stopped Digg'ing long time ago. Too immature for me. All groups have a 'norm' they sink to. As for posting content - if you agree to a TOS then by you have a moral obligation to follow it or remove/leave the the area. If you post a TOS as a condition of usability then enforce it or what's the point.
is the cat meant to burp penguins when i use that hex key through my wifi?
spose the hex key doesnt work........grin grin
This is a brilliant, brilliant post. I'm not kidding. As proof, let me point out the bravery of this statement right here:
"There's a reason that we have structured media: it's because we, the general populous, cannot be trusted to do it ourselves. That saying about bad apples spoiling the bunch comes to mind."
That statement isn't cowardice. That isn't stupidity. That isn't pandering to mass media. That's the truth. Digg is THE bad apple, and it IS spoiling the bunch. I can hardly stand to visit even the front page and click to a story, knowing the comments are a seething mass of what seems to be hateful, Godless, elitist anarchists, jostling for attention.
At least mass media has professional lines and limited carefully drawn out. I'd much rather read TIME or Newsweek or the New Yorker than the amateur opinions of hateful twenty-somethings. In fact, I'd PAY to do it. And I do.
Amen to that! I too stopped digging a long time ago myself. I find myself here and there do a google search that directs to a good post by a Digg person, but I never read the comments.
On Digg, you can post something to the community that you spend time and effort trying to create, and if one thing is merely off, they critisize you for everything. It's retarded. I was never much of a fan of it, but for awhile now I've just refused to really go there at all.
Digg Sucks :)
Ditto. I had a site that I made that simply stated the fact that anonymous geeks are annoying. I *wanted* to like digg. I got disgusted after a long night realizing I was on the wrong side of a debate.
In comments.
There seems to be an equivalent reason that certain real news organizations don't allow comments on stories. It's all about the anonymous masses, yearning to belch free.
Hi, thanks for your comment on my blog, and interesting to see your reasoning here. I can simply say that I don't agree.If you dislike a news source that is based on user generated content, then you should of course not be on digg.
Do you reason the same way when it comes to democracy and our representatives in government? User generated content is a lot like user generated government representatives.
I remember a year ago or so the L. A. Times tried letting people comment on their stories in a move to jump on the Web 2.0 bandwagon. The experiment lasted for under a month because the majority of stuff posted was obscene rubbish by people with nothing better to do or say.
@Emil: I can hardly agree that a representative form of government is in anyway similar to a website such as Digg besides the fact that people are voting for things. A government like that in the United States has many checks and balances to sustain a healthy and progressive direction (yes, even today, but yet again: another argument for another blog).
Digg is now just a never-ending popularity contest ruled by a figurative handful of obsessed people with nothing better to do. At first, the entire concept of Digg was "social bookmarking." Generally, I bookmark sites to go back to because they're useful, I haven't completely read them all, or I want to show someone else. Digg might be the third thing, but it's definitely isn't either of the first two anymore.
Or, broken down further, when some people see a system, they want to exploit it. They want to break the system and turn it inside-out.
But let's get back to the theory of this having to do with democracy. Democracy is defined as (among other, less relevant things) "a government by the people; especially, rule of the majority." [m-w.com] It's also defined as a government where "the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." [m-w.com] Ignoring the fact that Digg is not a government, the rule is definitely not of the majority. It takes what — thirtyish votes to be promoted to the home page? Even then, the most Diggs a story has ever received was in the twenty-five-thousand range.
I refuse to believe that this is the majority.
Secondly, the supreme power is not vested in the people, there are behind-the-scenes administrators that do as they please with neither checks nor balances. We don't vote for people to represent our region on Digg and vote for us, everyone just votes.
Finally, there is no limitation to the voting process. There is no set timeframe for voting, it's just vote early, vote often.
Our representatives in government vote mainly based on how they feel that a vote should be cast. When we elect our representatives, we try to scan each of their characteristics to predict which way the votes will fall for individual based on topics that are important to us and our opinions on each matter. It's nearly impossible to find a representative that agrees with your morals and values 100%, but we do our best, and so far it's seems to be holding, although really, this system is only a couple-hundred years old. I'm sure the Roman Empire seemed like a great idea mid-flourish as well.
That being said, I do like the form of my government. When executed correctly, it seems to be a well-oiled machine that may stumble but always self-corrects. Digg, on the other hand, is no such case. There is nothing to stop the decay of quality in content (and average user) unless a complete system change is made.
And if that happens, then you're no longer dealing with Digg, but another entity all together.
Emil: Fred's comment mirrors my own sentiment.
Although, I suppose to be fair, not every eligible voter votes in the US government. So the correlation isn't exact. I'm not a fan of pure democracy (which I consider mob rule or a voting anarchy) and Digg is simply the epitome of what bullies can do to ruin a site. If you have *no* life and a bunch of college friends, you have a voting bloc that is nearly always guaranteed to work, evidencing the few names that seem to *always* get on the front page.
Also, there isn't a real incentive to vote thumbs down on an article. I mean, yes, if the article is factually bogus, it's likely to be voted down. However, if the article is inflammatory enough, even in the face of being inaccurate, it may have an equal chance of being thumbed up and on the front page. That just leaves a result similar to "Do you wish to retain this dictator?" In general, just like StumbleUpon, unless the article is flagrantly out of my "I like this", I'd pretty much just ignore and go onto the next issue.
But Digg becomes similar to representative government, due to its voting blocs handling the representative tasks, except I didn't get a chance to really vet the submitters. OK, maybe I did... I could ignore that submitter, and I could ignore and thumbs down this person and that person ... but I'd rather just be able to hit sites of content rather than dealing with random and sometimes obnoxious comments. At the moment, StumbleUpon is great for me. I figure other people use Digg to get sites, then Stumble ThumbsUp, then I get it. The benefit with that is I get the social bookmarking ... without the anti-social.
Another benefit of StumbleUpon over Digg is that the content is already vetted for me. I don't even have to browse and pick through comments to find out more about the site than the pithy intro provided by the Digg submitter and whether I should visit the submitted site. I *have* visited the site provided through StumbleUpon. And, generally, it's a delightful surprise (which is how I came here). Plus, it appears, StumbleUpon is friendlier to sites than Digg.
That LA Times experiment in adding WIKIs to their articles only lasted 3 days.
Good news
thank you for informations.
I don't understand your complaint here.
Well, first of all, I don't understand why they were taking down the links to the code in the first place. Are they owned by a company that could be hurt by this? Is it against the law? Did someone just feel some responsibility to do so? I guess if it's against the TOS it's good to take down, but I would never make posting a link to anything in the proper category against the TOS.
I think a site of this design should post anything that's recommended. I mean, I'm sure you can search for the codes on google and find them. Should google be censoring the results of things that could contain "sensitive information"? Or should they make available what is out there to be found?
And I'm also amused that you're offended that they responded to the desires of their users. It seems like a very basic supply and demand principle to make available what the majority of your consumers want (although perhaps not always in overly-abundant form).
You say they "should be allowed to step in and make an executive decision," yet are angry when they do, because it isn't exactly the decision you would make.
It really just seems like you weren't interested in one specific topic on Digg that many of your fellow users were. I guess if the site has moved away from your interests it makes sense for you to leave, but I don't see that they've done anything so outrageous that you were forced you to take a stand.
Also, thanks for telling me you started blogging here regularly.
MySpace 4 lyf.
Read something more recent.
Statements and opinions expressed in this blog and any comments made are the private opinions of the respective poster, and, as such, iMarc LLC is neither responsible nor liable for such content.
Visitors
digged