Shame on you Digg. Good for you Digg.
3.05.07 @ 12:48 amAs many of you most likely know by now, a
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)
- Was it Worth It, Digg?
- Digg fights user revolt over HD-DVD ban – Digg founders took HD-DVD sponsorship.
- DVD DRM row sparks user rebellion
- Digg Users Are Showing the True Power of Users on User Run Sites
- Digg This: 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
- 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63.com
advertising, alternative news sources, community, democratic process, digg, dugg, hd dvd, internet, kevin rose, money, news, social news, traditional news, web web 2


May 3rd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
$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.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
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.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:13 am
$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.
May 10th, 2007 at 8:53 am
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.
May 15th, 2007 at 1:50 am
$0.00 in Comment Love for October
new digg alternative
to launch soon
www.vybr.com