A couple of reports, from HotAir and Jason Calacanis stating that a mob of users at social networking darling Digg is working together to bury posts from conservative bloggers, SEO’s and other people they’ve decided they don’t like.
This following the recent decision by Digg to un-ban a long list of sites previously banned for alleged spamming, included most (if not all) of the blogging SEO community.
As Jason Calacanis rightfully points out, the bury process at Digg is not transparent in that user names are not attached to bury requests, which itself leads to the accusation that mob rule is currently in vogue at the site. Certainly the screenshots at HotAir would indicate nothing more than malicious behavior by the mob.
Have you been buried or banned by Digg? Let us know in the comments. It’s a story I’d like to do a bit more digging on (pardon the pun).
Tags: Digg
Originally posted on February 26, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
From conservative bloggers?
LGF ha been throwing every single one of its anti-Muslim post up there (with a lot of success).
You can find tons of peoples with specific agendas that are only on Digg to digg stories that support their frame of reality.
My article DIGG is Filled with Liberal Idiots, about how liberal idiots were burying articles they disagreed with, received 104 DIGGS before it was buried four hours later today.
Sorry, I should have included my followup article: I died in less than 4 hours on DIGG
Anyone who cries/complains about others crying is a big crybaby themselves :)
Guilty as charged. But I never said I wasn’t a crybaby. At least when I cry I do not bury anyone’s story.
And by the way, my friend, anyone who complains about anyone who cries/complains about others crying is a big crybaby themselves. Or weren’t you complaining?
bernie
that sounds like a vicious circle. But back to the serious side, I’d think that certainly there is a political bent at Digg to the left. The irony of course that the Diggbats who support groups such as the ACLU won’t allow free speech from the other side. Hypocrisy has always been the weakness of the left.
You whined and wrote about how they were loonies and so forth.
Then you went to ‘their’ site, tried to convince them otherwise (in a condescending tone which of course never goes over well). You then proceeded to whine more about it, as well as spreading your links around.
I pointed out your baby-ways.
One is a crybaby, the other is an observer. I leave it as an academic exercise to figure out which is which :)
And it isn’t Digg which bends to the left, it is pretty much the internet as a whole.
I am a liberal and am an active contributor to Digg, and I have to say that it isn’t that Digg slants to the left so much as it’s the radicalism that spawned from the neocons in Bush’s administration that has completely altered the face of the conservative movement.
I have absolutely no problem with the conservative values of a decade or two ago, and can find myself agreeing with some of their views. Today far to many completely and utterly fail to realize the the so call conservative values of recent, aren’t traditional conservative values, but radical neoconservative ideologies that aren’t in line with traditional conservatives or the general public, which is moderate, and doesn’t agree with the polarizing radical views of both the conservatives and some liberals today.
I know many respectable, reasonable republicans that absolutely despise the direction of the republican party to align with neoconservative values. You can’t cry liberal slant when you don’t understand the neoconservative movement that has progressed in recent years.
“…I have to say that it isn’t that Digg slants to the left so much as it’s the radicalism that spawned from the neocons in Bush’s administration that has completely altered the face of the conservative movement.”
Wow, the “blame it on Bush” syndrome so quickly! Like HE has control over Digg. Ha!
Yes, I’m blaming bush…Firstly, your claim is off base, as I was talking about the neocons in his administration. Secondly your claim is irrelevant to the argument made and completely misses the point in which I was making.
I was pointing out it’s the radical ideology of the neocons that has radically changed the face of traditional conservative values, which is not in line with moderate America…and is largely the reason why liberals and traditional conservatives alike, side more moderately or liberally, than the radical right. The point is you don’t have to be liberal, to side with their views, especially lately…and that can be attributable to the perceived liberal slant on digg. Please try being reasonable and mature before you going spinning comments completely out of context and making irrelevant sensational claims.
It happens that I support as many liberal positions as conservative ones. But to call LGF or Michelle Malkin a spam site is an abuse of the bury button. If DIGG were truly run by people who knew what they were doing they could monitor the abusers and ignore their buries as well as their DIGGS.
I have no doubt that much of the reason for the buries of my article was because of a perceived insult to liberals because I called them idiots. But it was not meant to be insulting, rather it is merely descriptive like psychopathic killer, or Islamic Terrorist, or leftist moron. The words just go together.
Of course, liberal Diggbats have no problem digging articles with phrases like neocon fascist rascist bigot whatever and burying conservative articles without bothering to read them.
“But to call LGF or Michelle Malkin a spam site is an abuse of the bury button.”
That’s a good point, and I agree with it 100%. The problem is that there aren’t very many bury choices and “This is Lame” doesn’t actually sum up the real reason people are burying. Blame semantics for that.
Personally, I sometimes bury as lame from those two sites, but primarily it’s when Malkin or LGF or even HotAir are used as fronts for a link to yet another page. I’m not saying people can’t or shouldn’t have their opinion, but how many clicks does it take to get to the center of a neocon article? As far as I’m concerned, 2 is too many. Did I read the article before burying it? Maybe not, but I read what was at the direct link…
I also bury comments that resort to name calling and, honestly, I truly wish that Digg had a bury option for Hate Speech (whether against conservatives, liberals, Muslims, Christians,etc.) But I use Digg on my own terms, by my own personal rules for Digg or bury on comments and stories.
That’s the thing… I’m not a part of any group or clique at Digg, I’m just a person with an interest in community news sharing, but I draw the line at promoting a favorite site when the real story to be had is several clicks away.
I’ll agree with you that no one should be digging an article that refers to another article. If anything, one should Digg the original link. In fact “lame” could cover an article where no real opinion or news is disussed but merely pointed to.
As far as hate speech, that becomes problematic. 98% of my family was wiped out during a fictional holocaust and while I may be overly sensitive to stories from Muslim sites that discuss Jews kidnapping Arab children for body parts, I would not want those articles to be buried. This is what these people truly believe and burying such articles results in more harm than good.
Evil ideas can only flourish in darkness; expose them to light and they will wither. Besides hate speech is at times indistinguishable from scientific facts. A while back a professor lost his job from saying females are different than males. Are we to bury everything because it insults someone?
Is it hate speech to say that pedophiles should not be running day-care centers? Wouldn’t saying something like this hurt their feelings? Extreme case? Maybe today, but who knows a few years down the road if we keep worrying about hurting the feelings of blacks, Muslims, Catholics, gays, etc. Soon nothing will be published for fear of hurting anyone’s and everyone’s feelings.
In fact “lame†could cover an article where no real opinion or news is discussed but merely pointed to.
I didn’t notice the missing c in discussed. Lame keyboard. Perhaps I should bury it.
The bury system is funny. My story had been steadily gaining diggs and was appearing near the top of Hot in Upcoming section. Suddenly, it was buried. I can’t fathom a reason for it either :-/ .
There are several result of lottery on the ton
for willpower place trades. In herbal, cheat contrary gloves
to bond any exhibit that they improve.