Growing Censorship Concerns at Digg 473
I find site rivalries boring, but growing concerns over Digg "censorship" have been submitted steadily for the last few months. Today two such stories were submitted so numerous that I had little choice but to post. The first claims that Digg is
the editor's playground- it explains how a few users control Digg, and that it's not really the 'Democracy' that they claim it to be. Personally I think this is all totally within the rights of their editors to choose content however they like. But it's less pleasant when combined with accounts getting banned for posting content critical of digg, and watching other content getting
removed for being critical of sponsors (also, here is Kevin Rose's reply).
Re:This should be fun (Score:5, Informative)
The same happened to others.
Interesting stuff last night in Digg (Score:5, Informative)
Two front page articles got pulled off within 10 minutes of being promoted.
Users can easily create email accounts, change their IP address by resetting their router/modem and create accounts in digg to eventually digg their articles.
Non-moderated news never works. Digg _is_ moderated. The poor soles who frequent that site just don't know it. As TFA said, digg.com is more of an editor playground that a democratic proccess of picking news.
here are two examples from yesterday
Example 1 [digg.com] Example 2 [digg.com]My view (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Misinformation (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This should be fun (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, I'm one of them.
Re:It's not a democracy... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:There is no democracy in the 'net (Score:1, Informative)
Actually, by U.S. law, site owners who do not exercise editorial control are expressly not liable for illegal content appearing on their sites.
Also don't forget ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This should be fun (Score:5, Informative)
Add another Slashdot victom here. I used to get mod points weekly. After I complained about Michael (and got a post of mine instantly modded from +3 down to -1), I haven't seen them since.
Overall, I find it odd that CmdrTaco complains about Digg censorship, when Slashdot itself has its own glaring examples. For example, check out this thread where every single comment was modded down to -1 [slashdot.org]. Even worse, once when a thread was knocked down to -1, those who mod up anything, *anything* in that thread no longer get mod points. [kuro5hin.org]
Stories pull themselves off the front page... (Score:2, Informative)
If the admins pulled it, the story would simply not be there at all. They've done this in the past. The fact that the story you point to is still there at all just shows that the editors did not do it.
DIGG the Slashdot story pulled from front page (Score:4, Informative)
Re:DIGG the Slashdot story pulled from front page (Score:4, Informative)
Their real problem is lack of visibility. (Score:5, Informative)
A story reaches the front page by people "digging" that story. The total number of "diggs" is listed on the page.
However, a story can be yanked from the front page by people who mark it as lame or inaccurate or spam, or whatever. These numbers are NOT listed.
So when a story is yanked back off, there is no visibility as to WHY it was yanked off the front page. Lots of people seem to think that the admins do it themselves, when in fact it's some algorithim taking it off because enough people marked it down.
If they made this information visible, then there'd be less complaining. Instead of having several options like lame and so forth, they should have a simple button marked "Bury" to allow people to say that the story is stupid (or whatever they feel). Put a counter next to the bury link, to show how many people don't like it. Then when a story is autoyanked from the front page, there will be visibility. People won't have room to complain, because the story clearly got buried from people marking it down.
The REAL reason people are complaining is because of a poor user interface, not censorship.
Re:This should be fun (Score:5, Informative)
Digg.com [netcraft.com]: Rank 1150.
slashdot.org [netcraft.com]: Rank 62.
Re:This should be fun (Score:3, Informative)
Personally, I don't see the point of censorship at all unless it's spam and other such content. E.g., on my blog I've had a variety of negative comments left by readers about me, the site, my work, etc. But Rob et al should know that you can't sanely publish on the Internet unless you can take it all with a grain of salt. Now spam, on the other hand, is quickly deleted...
Re:This should be fun (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting because I have had this account for quite some time, and I (used to) Meta-Moderate on a daily basis. I also used my mod points to mod up, and not down. It was very rare indeed for me to mark someone as a troll or similar. Still, I followed a link to a supposed "forbidden" criticism of slashdot and such, and read all the posts therin, and I have not had moderation privilages since.
I have since stopped meta-moderating as much because, well, while I like slashdot, and it is my homepage on Firefox, I am somehow no longer appreciated or something, or maybe not trusted. I don't know.
Its funny really, when people like you and me are the ones for making slashdot what it is. Sure, there are posts about various stories, but what MAKES slashdot are the comments. For example, I have always found this thread: http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=129489&
What digg aspires to be is a more "open" version of slashdot, whether it achives that or not we will see. Either way, the competition has been good, I suppose everyone has noticed the quick little changes in how slashdot works now? When this site has not changed much in the last five years?
No matter the outcome, the shakedown on this is bound to be good... It would be nice though, to have mention of the reason users like me are suddenly not allowed to moderate, as opposed to just having it vanish - apparently for "viewing" the wrong threads...
Re:This should be fun (Score:3, Informative)
Google is #1
Yahoo is #2
MySpace is #83
And you are an anonymous idiot