Hey there, it looks like this is your first time here. May I suggest subscribing to this blog and checking out these articles.

SOME RANDOM DUDE

Shame on you Digg. Good for you Digg.

3.05.07 @ 12:48 am
Digg Logo
Image courtesy of urlyart.

As many of you most likely know by now, a
series of numbers used to crack HD-DVD have been spreading like wildfire on the internet. As to be expected, articles pertaining to this subject (and the number) showed up all over the place on Digg. All of the sudden, those dugg articles started disappearing off of the Digg site - no doubt from heavy pressure from people affiliated with the HD DVD business. It became suddenly clear why the pressure in this particular case seemed to work when an article pointed out that Digg took a HD DVD sponsorship. As one could expect, the Digg community was furious.

Make no mistake, this happens all the time in the news. The problem is, this was not supposed to happen with social news. Being a community-centric organism, the idea was that the will of the users would trump financial conflicts of interest. Do not think I am naive, I am well aware that money runs just about everything. However, the recent success of social/Web 2.0 sites like MySpace, YouTube, Flickr and others suggest that the community is, in and of itself, an extremely valuable commodity. Lose the community and you lose financial interest. Of course the same applies to TV in terms of ratings, however network (and even cable) TV is fairly static in terms of size. The competition for attention is in many ways much less fierce on TV than it is on the internet. From my perspective, this seemed like a viable check and balance for a site like Digg to not get pushed around by an irked advertiser. Unfortunately, at least in the immediate aftermath, it did not.

The beauty of this story is that it ends well (at least for now). The great check and balance of the community did in fact convince Digg to reverse its ban on the topic. Digg definitely made the right call on this and, in my opinion, turned some very sour lemons into some very sweet lemonade. The Digg community ultimately got a big signal that they, when it all boils down, have a significant say. There may be times when they have to loudly protest, such as in this case, but there is no doubt that their voices are heard. Whether you are a fan of social news or not, that is what makes the system tick. Once a site’s community is on the back-burner, only consuming the news that a few chosen people dish out, it is no different than CNN, FOX News or any of the other dinosaurs.

Many people, including myself, were critical of the decision to bow to the will of an irrational company, however I wonder how many of us would have done the same. It takes (for the lack of better words) testicular fortitude to willingly put something you have dedicated a considerable amount of your life to in the line of fire. I just cannot personally see one of the big-business cable news networks putting the desires of its audience/community above an advertiser. From my point of view, this decision to publicly put the community’s interest above money is big - very big. What happens to Digg from this point forward could have tremendous consequences for the blogging community and social news as a whole. If Digg comes out of this unscathed, they have scored a huge point for anti-censorship on the internet as well as online social news. They have set the bar for putting community and open information above not only profits, but also possible legal repercussions.

Many people in my generation (mid 20’s) are looking to alternative news sources (including online social news) as our main source of information. One of the very reasons for this is that there is a belief that the information we get will be chosen from the bottom up, not the other way around - as is the case with traditional news. I am very excited to see that Digg’s founder, Kevin Rose, came to the same conclusion.

Noteworthy Articles on the Topic (in no particular order)

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Liked This Post?

Well then, post the article to del.icio.us and subscribe to Some Random Dude's RSS Feed.

Show some comment love.

Total Donations for October:

$1.50

Want to help a good cause? Want to get this number higher? Learn how.

5 Responses to “Shame on you Digg. Good for you Digg.”

  1. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for October

    Wow. Thank you for summarizing everything so well. Being consumed by work in the past week, I barely had a chance to read the news headlines about the Digg situation.

    I am very impressed by the power of social networking sites based on user participation. A small, but good example of another site that empowers its users is Yelp.com, an SF food and retail review site. Just as Digg users can express their opinion through voting, members on Yelp use reviews and votes to expose unethical businesses and elevate those who contribute to the community or provide good services. An amazing example of a web group rising together occurred when a shady business threatened to sue reviewers for defamation. (This particular business had many negative marks, an obvious sign of something amiss.) The collective Yelp community (including the site owners) helped the reviewers who’s free speech rights were being threatened by raising awareness of the situation on message boards, writing reviews with a warning of poor business practices, etc. Even lawyers came forth to offer free advice on issues regarding free speech vs. defamation, unanimously agreeing that this business was using scare tactics on people. In the end, who came forth victorious? The website users, of course. But most of all, freedom of speech.


  2. Yeah, the whole subject is absolutely fascinating. I’m glad you mentioned Yelp because it is a great example of a web community that doesn’t have the geek-glass-ceiling as Digg and del.icio.us. I keep telling myself that I am going to start participating in that community because it is so damned cool.


  3. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for October

    The whole thing was pretty interesting. But calling it a ‘community vs money’ thing is a little false.

    By leaving things up Digg was exposing itself to a severe lawsuit which they probably couldn’t afford. I don’t think the sponsorship had anything to do with it. It’s easy for users to say things are ‘wrong’ when they don’t have to deal with the consequences and make the tough decisions so people should be far more forgiving.

    If Digg goes down because of this, the sacrafice for users is minimal, they’ll just visit Reddit or Slashdot. For the people who own it, and work there it’s a very big deal indeed and people should expect them to break the law just to fit in with their own beliefs.


  4. Kevin - Strongly disagree with you. If we are really going to define Digg and other social news sites as part of the news, they are going to have to be afforded the same freedoms that the traditional press has. Make no mistake, this number was already a fixture around the internet - there was no way that the story (and that sequence of numbers) was going to be removed from the internet or the public consciousness. By the time Digg had it on their site, it was too late for anything to be done. Digg essentially made the story (that was already know by a large group of people) official. Any attempt to sue Digg would be a classic example of killing the messenger.

    Also, don’t forget it was the MPAA that accidentally released the code to begin with.


  5. Gravatar
    $0.00 in Comment Love for October

    new digg alternative
    to launch soon
    www.vybr.com


Leave a Reply

Additional Doodads

Subscribe to Some Random Dude

Related Entries:

Most Commented Pages