Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
What I hate about Digg [PIC]
i29.tinypic.com — And no, we won't just hide the 2008 Elections section from our accounts. The election is interesting. Hearing how ONE candidate is awesome and all the other suck is not interesting. It's spam, and it's annoying.
arcooke- 5950 diggs
- digg it
- 0Xonox0, on 05/06/2008, -124/+794Dugg for "Anti-Clinton" appearing 9 times and "Pro-Obama" appearing 5 times. Bonus points for mentioning the media not being "fair and balanced"
- thebadkitty, on 05/06/2008, -46/+19Whoosh!
- Harmatia, on 05/06/2008, -26/+8Guess you and 5 other diggers are missing the invisible sarcasm tags.
Whoosh! - voodoochild461, on 05/06/2008, -20/+8Woosh! indeed
- k3vin187, on 05/06/2008, -7/+9lame... what a waste of comments. the dude who made this should just block politics, then you can avoid the politically close minded diggers, and then you only have to worry about the ifanboys
- Harmatia, on 05/06/2008, -26/+8Guess you and 5 other diggers are missing the invisible sarcasm tags.
- cicconefortin, on 05/06/2008, -37/+10Mary Ruwart 2008 http://votemary2008.com
- Encablossa, on 05/06/2008, -4/+13Mary who?
- cicconefortin, on 05/06/2008, -10/+10Mary Ruwart
- bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -6/+10BULLCUTTER 2008 FTW... i don't got no fancy website, just write it in November bitch!
- cicconefortin, on 05/06/2008, -8/+2Mary Ruwart should get ballot access in all 50 states by November.
- po43292, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3With a name like that I'd be afraid not to.
- nmnnotmyname, on 05/06/2008, -3/+8Political SPAM 2008
Comment Hijacking FTW?- cicconefortin, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4I just figured that somebody other than Clinton or Obama deserved mention. :)
- sarixe, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2FTL*
- bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -12/+1BULLCUTTER 2008 FTW... i don't got no fancy website, just write it in November bitch!
- ikickass, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5didnt you also post that up there? oh yeah, yeah you did
- coffeebot, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1The last time I did a write-in was for Pat Paulsen, my first time to vote. Thanks for reminding me that I can once again turn my vote into an anti-vote message. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Paulsen http://www.paulsen.com/pat/
- bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1haha yeah that wasn't as much on purpose
- ikickass, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5didnt you also post that up there? oh yeah, yeah you did
- Encablossa, on 05/06/2008, -4/+13Mary who?
- suprememilo, on 05/06/2008, -20/+8I hate so much negative *****, but I like pro stuff.
- jdb252, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Pro tip: make sense.
- AeonTorpor, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Are you Pro-killing children?
- GeneralFault, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I think he is more of the pro-nambla type...
- bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -40/+239this isn't "the media", this is Digg. Its a social networking site that revolves around the media. we aren't creating news, we're just bitching about it.
Digg is more of a reaction to the media if anything. anybody who thinks otherwise needs to get off their high horse and come to terms with accepting their unimportance.- masterm1nd, on 05/06/2008, -30/+12Look up the definition of "media"
- rossmcd, on 05/06/2008, -4/+19I think bullcutter meant "the media" as in journalistic news media. Which Digg is most definitely not.
- masterm1nd, on 05/06/2008, -17/+7Ohh I see, the... "it is but it isn't" spin...
- bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -6/+17Digg is "media" but not "the media" that everybody commonly refers to as the collective sum of mediums of news generation. Since Digg is based on the submission of actual news articles all from other news sources, it is therefore impossible for Digg to actually be "the media."
can you wrap your mastermind about that or do i need to space it out a little more? - masterm1nd, on 05/06/2008, -17/+11So if I'm dealing another drug dealers drugs, it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to be a drug dealer. Got it. I'll let you know how that works out for me in the real world...
The bottom line is millions of people now get their news from the NEWS SECTION OF DIGG. You may be cool with them being brainwashed for Obama, but will you be cool with it when it's not for your guy. - bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -6/+12"So if I'm dealing another drug dealers drugs, it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to be a drug dealer. Got it. I'll let you know how that works out for me in the real world..."
You know what I hate about Digg? Totally pointless analogies.
Your analogy fits this situation about as well as a hat fits a turd.
Digg isn't "the media." Nobody refers to "Digg" as their "source" unless they are retarded. You can say "I heard it / saw it / read it on Digg", but everybody who knows what Digg is damn well knows it didn't originate there. A well-organized collection of information from other sources is not the same thing as a "news source."
You wouldn't quote my comments as "a news source" would you? I rest my case. - mahuebel, on 05/06/2008, -7/+3by your definition, wouldnt that mean the media is ONLY the journalists that break the story? If CNN has a breaking story a minute before FOX does, that means CNN is the media and FOX is non-media?
I would contend that Digg is "the media" but it only uses exterior sources. - cupid311, on 05/06/2008, -3/+6No that means that CNN got the story first. Digg is basically a database full of News stories. The actual media stations that get the stories are where Digg gets it's articles. Digg didn't create the story. Multiple news stations can do different stories on the same subject. What he is saying is that the articles we read on Digg didn't come straight from Digg. They came from a different media source. CNN and Fox are "The Media". Digg is a "Media Database". And yes, the drug dealer analogy is a horrible analogy. You're comparing apples to oranges.......
- masterm1nd, on 05/06/2008, -11/+3Cupid, we can argue all you want about it, but it's a non issue. Digg is now basically a propaganda site and millions of young people who just liked technology are being brainwashed; which can disingenuously effect our country/life. That is a BAD thing regardless of who technically is defined as "the media". And you're still wrong about that.
- Tiak, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3* "Digg analogies fit situations about as well as a hats fit turds. " - Recursive analogy ftw!
- rossmcd, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6Masterm1nd, I think most people on Digg realize that the front page here is user-driven content. And I think they realize that it does not represent the coverage as the front page of a newspaper - where editors, not anonymous internet users, make the decisions about what is and isn't important. If these journalistic news sources start changing the type of stories that they choose to cover, then that affects the range of possibilities that can be posted on Digg. If Digg over-represents one side of a particular story (ie, Barack Obama) it has no consequence on the supply of news stories available for people to access through different databases. That is the critical difference, and the reason why I think we should be more concerned about bias in investigative journalism rather than than in Digg - regardless of whether or not they fit into your personal definition of "the media".
And it seems like a big leap to say that Digg is brainwashing people. There are a lot of stories on Digg about video games and funny videos - is Digg brainwashing people to like these things as well? IMO, a more likely explanation is that Digg has a lot of young users ... and things like video games, funny videos, and - yes - Barack Obama are popular among young folks. So they are represented highly on Digg's front page. - LoveAndSeagulls, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Digg doesn't make the stories. It brings to attention stories that the readers find interest in. For Digg to be media, it would have to have stories originate from it. It would have to write it's own stories, publish them, and ***** all over politicians. Digg does not do two of those things.
- bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -6/+17Digg is "media" but not "the media" that everybody commonly refers to as the collective sum of mediums of news generation. Since Digg is based on the submission of actual news articles all from other news sources, it is therefore impossible for Digg to actually be "the media."
- nmnnotmyname, on 05/06/2008, -5/+17Look up the definition of "***** off you know what they meant"
- darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4Traditional media isn't interactive.
Digg is.
That's the difference.- madeingermany, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3and Digg is democratic
- OreosRgood4me, on 05/06/2008, -7/+44Digg: proving to be an argument against majoritarian democracy one click at a time.
- KiraDnote, on 05/06/2008, -32/+17Digg has become propaganda central for Barack Hussein Obama. It's a disgrace.
- Fafnir43, on 05/06/2008, -10/+15Wow, you must be the /first/ person to ever have quoted his full name to cast him in an unfavourable light. How original!
- masterm1nd, on 05/06/2008, -14/+9I love it. Any one who simply types the full name of the possible president is a bigot. How original!
- ayeroxor, on 05/06/2008, -8/+2The fact that the numbers show a majority of people support him is now propaganda? I suppose if the numbers showed a majority of people liked your preferred candidate, it would cease to be propaganda?
- 11oops, on 05/06/2008, -3/+7How dare you mention his full name. Don't you know his supporters are embarrassed and threatened by his name and will therefore bury you?
- thcobbs, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3REAAALLLY? Since when do we call statistical polls fact?
- ryuujin, on 05/06/2008, -7/+7gotta have something to counter LGF right?
Points for mentioning obama's middle name in continued attempts to paint him as a muslim (and thus a terrorist)- masterm1nd, on 05/06/2008, -8/+8You didn't capitalize Obama. That can only mean you think African Americans are subhuman (and thus a racist)
- 11oops, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Don't say that mastermind -- you'll only give the bandwagon new ideas and excuses to bury people.
- thcobbs, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3When was the last time a LGF story got any where NEAR the front page of digg? Granted, they are propagandists themselves, but its like a goddamn pot calling a kettle black.
- 5urr3al5am, on 05/06/2008, -8/+14digg is a bunch of bullsh!t
- planksconstant, on 05/06/2008, -5/+7so then why are you here?
- 11oops, on 05/06/2008, -4/+6Sadly, it appears to be coming to that point. YouTube comments, 4chan images and memes, slanted politics, and less and less tech content daily. A true shame.
- thcobbs, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2True, but next time you should at least put the I in a proper position.
- KiraDnote, on 05/06/2008, -32/+17Digg has become propaganda central for Barack Hussein Obama. It's a disgrace.
- masterm1nd, on 05/06/2008, -15/+11The media is the delivery of news, not the creation of news. Obviously FOX and CNN don't "create" the news, the world does. They simply present it, just like digg.
- cannarymburns, on 05/06/2008, -5/+9lol, they try their damn hardest to create them...
- KiraDnote, on 05/06/2008, -3/+16So does Digg. Do you really think most of this stuff is news? No. It's old stuff being rehashed and re-spun on Obama's behalf. AKA propaganda.
- 11oops, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5Like Digg didn't try to create news by digging up a clip from a 1993 documentary where a Clinton staffer whispers something? If the planted expletives weren't in the title no one would have thought he was making racist remarks because it didn't follow the context of the rest of the clip.
Digg posters were saying 'I forwarded this to all my newspapers and TV stations' and 'Why isn't the MSM picking this up' and etc. etc. etc. That was an attempt to create news where none existed and spread it not just here on Digg but on other sources as well.
- bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -3/+14hahahaha... hillllarious! you don't honestly believe this, do you?
For how many months was the Natalie Holloway story "presented" on your beloved news networks day in and day out, all the while 1 girl goes missing and is never found every day in the U.S. alone.
News is not just what happens but what sells.- masterm1nd, on 05/06/2008, -5/+4I don't disagree that profit is the primary bias. What does it have to do with the comment you replied too?
- bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -5/+7"They simply present it, just like digg."
"simply present it" = fascistic garbage
and CNN and FOX most certainly DO "create" news. (ie, turning something meaningless into profit by manipulating people's emotions and senses) - masterm1nd, on 05/06/2008, -5/+5But by your own logic, 'they aren't the ones doing it so it's not them'. By your logic, CNN isn't even the media because the anchors and reporters are the ones 'making stuff'.
By your own words, when CNN "turns something meaningless into..." turning something != creating - crimsonalucard, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3You can think of news as a fabrication based on a true story. Their's so much news out their, that the media picks and chooses events that sell and then they change parts of it to serve their own agenda. Very very very close to simply fabricating and creating news.
- ryuujin, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5mastermind is correct, it's just that as we become an information society, ideas like gatekeeping and agenda setting become more and more important. I'd argue this shows up more for digg, as they are getting information 3rd, 4th, 5th, even 10th source. Do I even have to mention the posts of blogs that are summarising links to blogs that summarised and linked from a blog that summarised and linked from a website, that itself uses useless, unlisted or sketchy sources? That's the worst example, but it occurs often.. At each source you get another lens, another spin.
Now news occurs in the world, the US media lens filters out 95% of the news and presents it with their spin, which may or may not be correct, and can vary by degree. Then digg filters it through another US mostly-liberal lens and you get the listings above.
Here's one simple example not a lot of people on here are going to think of because you're mostly US citizens - how much non-US news do you guys talk about? Try and count how many 'world' events you get against US events, and then filter those out by ones that you think 'apply' to the world but are reported by Americans in reference to America. What arguement do you have for this, are the US elections the most important political events going on in the world right now? 24/7? really? Americans are inundated by American news, and disproportion ally so to the arguement that they are simply Americans.
- cannarymburns, on 05/06/2008, -5/+9lol, they try their damn hardest to create them...
- fkr3, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6Digg's only a partial reaction to the media. The rest is predictable and consistent reacting to the constant flow of ***** blogs and websites specifically create *for* digg.
- Godin7654, on 05/06/2008, -5/+4"Media"? No, THIS IS DIGG!
- rpgmaker, on 05/06/2008, -6/+7"You complain about the media not being 'fair and balanced'
What do you call this?"
On digg we BALANCE the media :P - robbiemuffin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1well ballcutter, no disrespect but I have to disagree. digg is a particularly active segment of the internet interested in mob-reactions to (typically) orchestrated events, yes, but in things like politics, the dominating interests (for politics especially, that is the traditional media) seed the articles ... then we are effectively the act of people reading those articles. It's like saying that radio frequency isn't a part of the media (or the FCC), or that the newspaper delivery person isn't part of the media. While there is some degree of separation, they are functionally equivalent.
- masterm1nd, on 05/06/2008, -30/+12Look up the definition of "media"
- OwdenBowden, on 05/06/2008, -10/+28Signed off and then saw this submission pop up so I had to sign back in and DIGG DIGG DIGG
- airstrike, on 05/06/2008, -5/+36does anybody else ever log out? because i never do
- Bunmei, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6It's reassuring to know that people aren't oblivious to this fact and it's kind of amusing how he made a pic out of it. Digg has been saturated by this nonsense, that most of us wouldn't bat an eye if we saw articles saying "Hilary is a baby-eater" or "Obama officially declared the next messiah". C'mon lets get back to the random ridiculous news, facts, and fun we've come to love about digg.
- theandy1, on 05/06/2008, -21/+12I'm so happy one of these made the front page! I would censor political news but an important story may actually come up! I submitted something similar last night here http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Enough_is_enough ...
All but two of the hot upcoming stories under all were obama/hillary articles. I have been planning on voting for Obama, but you guys are going to push me into throwing my vote away on Ron Paul or something just to spite you. I think you guys are all secretly in love with Hillary Clinton and will even bash her to give yourselves excuses to talk about her.- darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -7/+10How very un-American of you. Why don't you do your ***** civic job and vote based on the ISSUEs and not what you dislike about digg.com?
- theandy1, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1haha relax dude... it was only a joke. I guess people thought I was rly serious, I kinda assumed people would know I was joking when I said "Ron Paul OR SOMETHING".
- 11oops, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6I just loved seeing the comment "That ***** will never fool us. Send that cold bitch back to her hell" dugg up to the hundreds while anyone posting an intelligent comment that doesn't solely praise Obama is dugg down. The problem that I see isn't that there is an excess of pro-Obama submissions, but that we are being overwhelmed with anti-Hillary articles.
If Obama is such a great candidate then his campaign shouldn't have to resort to smear tactics. For the most part, he hasn't been running attack ads on MSM, so why do you diggers feel the need to sink to a Karl Rove level for him and focus on the faults of his opponent rather than his strengths? Are Obama's achievements so few that you need to focus on Hillary's negatives? If not, then stick to articles that praise Obama, rather than crucify Hillary.
And on the same topic, when the media focuses on something you consider stupid like not wearing a flag lapel pin, rather than cry 'let's stick to the topics', and 'this isn't news' remember how you dugg up and made a fuss over a reversed rifle in Hillary's ad.- Azulita360, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2The media is absolutely Pro Hillary. It makes us crazy, they won't listen. I love Digg!
- 11oops, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3So be pro-Obama instead of anti-Hillary -- that's all I ask. You would be doing your candidate a bigger favor because you all seem too busy bashing Hillary instead of bashing McCain so if it does come to a head's-up match you could use the practice talking up your candidate to overcome the divide that will surely exist.
- jdb252, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7It's not Senator Obama's campaign that is "[resorting] to smear tactics." It's the people on this website that support him. That's a very important distinction - Senator Obama has remained largely positive when he could easily attack Clinton for a variety of unsavory attributes.
- 11oops, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I agree, that's why I had written 'For the most part, he hasn't been running attack ads on MSM.' I admire Obama's campaign, and I believe he will be ethical through November given the chance -- unfortunately I have become doubtful that I want to support a candidate whose supporters are as fanatical and bullheaded as I have seen here on Digg because that would mean 4 years of no intelligent debate or discussion -- either here on Digg, in the papers, or on certain late-night shows (as I have seen lately on all three mediums).
- theandy1, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Yea' it's a shame these idiots resort to it, but whatever at least they're voting for him. I'd really like to hold onto the hope that he is not just the lesser of two evils. I am voting for him because of who he is not because of how bad his opponents are.
- Azulita360, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2The media is absolutely Pro Hillary. It makes us crazy, they won't listen. I love Digg!
- darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -7/+10How very un-American of you. Why don't you do your ***** civic job and vote based on the ISSUEs and not what you dislike about digg.com?
- dlearyus00, on 05/06/2008, -23/+43I think this brings a valid point that Obamaniacs are kinda cultish... like SCIENTOLOGISTS!!! I'm going to assume that for digg down this gets, half of them are from scientologists.
- irightthebook, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10Nope. We are Anonymous.
...***** - darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -8/+3No, we're going to keep your comment neutral so everyone can see how much of an asshole you are.
- thcobbs, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3/me gives darkciti2 a mirror
/me runs away from Jack Bower
- thcobbs, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3/me gives darkciti2 a mirror
- moonblaze, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I think that if they would ban the "Huffington Post" site that Digg might be a little better. I just get tired of the same stuff from them every day...Clinton is the anti-Christ ...and Obama is the golden boy who does no wrong.
- irightthebook, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10Nope. We are Anonymous.
- defska42, on 05/06/2008, -24/+58Best. Comment. Ever.
This really is a dumb submission. I mean, Digg is not a news source. It is a bunch of articles that its user base votes for. That's it. And considering Obama "fans" outnumber Clinton "fans" by more than 8 to 1, I would be surprised if Obama articles didn't make it to the front page. The bottom line is that the type of person that visits this type of website happens to be in Obama's base. Middle aged women and uneducated voters, Clinton's base, generally don't visit social news websites.- sgtbutterscotch, on 05/06/2008, -5/+11I like the idea of the submission, but the last line about "media" does not make that much sense. That being said, it sucks that Digg is being bombarded with pro-Obama stories/anti-Hillary stories, because first of all, I get it, most of y'all are gonna vote for Obama. And second of all, I think all this Obama mania is deluding a vast majority of you into thinking Obama has a 100% chance of winning the Democratic primary and winning it all. It would be sad if somehow all the popular support gets thrown to Hillary when all the people who aren't on Digg, i.e. old people (thousands of 'em and mostly women), completely overshadow what appears to the average Digg user as the overwhelming support of Obama.
- bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -9/+5He's winning the popular vote and delegate count. While his chance of winning might not be 100%, its pretty close.
- thcobbs, on 05/06/2008, -5/+5Hrrrm... Pretty close to 100%?
April Obama 42.5 McCain 46.0
Soooooo..... where's the "pretty close" to 100%? - archiesteel, on 05/06/2008, -7/+3Funny how you didn't provide a link. Funny how other polls give Obama as the winner. Funny how you misunderstood that bullcutter was referring to the Democratic nomination.
You're funny. - paranoiabacon, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1funny.
- thcobbs, on 05/06/2008, -5/+5Hrrrm... Pretty close to 100%?
- ayeroxor, on 05/06/2008, -7/+2"I like the idea of the submission,"
You like people whining because someone they don't support in a political race happens to be popular on a website? That's just ***** pathetic. Grow up.- sgtbutterscotch, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8I like the idea that someone submitted a story about Digg getting annoying with the politics stories and also the fact that it's getting lots of diggs. Believe it or not, some people find seeing the same things over and over annoying. And before anyone points out that I can filter which stories I see, I do enjoy an occasional political story. Also, watch your potty mouth. See, I can be bossy like you.
- bullcutter, on 05/06/2008, -9/+5He's winning the popular vote and delegate count. While his chance of winning might not be 100%, its pretty close.
- KiraDnote, on 05/06/2008, -6/+6Way to dis everybody who doesn't see things your way.
- Surferess, on 05/06/2008, -7/+2Dude, don't be dissin' middle aged women, and it is NOT TRUE that we are Obama's base. Get a fricking clue!
I am also educated, just bored. - jforjools, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2Ah, middle-aged woman...I'm on the social network...and I give money to Obama's campaign. ...Careful with the analysis.
But you're RIGHT that DiggNation simply leans Obama quite heavily.
That's why the headlines reflect it.
***** off?
Recruit more Hillary-lovers to be diggers. - cryptoki, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1well. to be fair.. ron paul stories that got thousands of hits.. rarely made it to the front page. now thats a conspiracy
- Vincent21212, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4*****. There weren't any Obama articles when Ron Paul was in the running. And Obama was way more popular than Paul was back then, just not on Digg. Now that Paul has gone to hell, you have to find the next best thing. Kiss my ass faggots. Digg has so much more potential than just attracting partisan nerd/losers like you guys. I hope one day it'll turn around!
- homerang, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2You're right. Digg has such a potential to be an information base where anyone can find the important news, and not just the lapel stuff that shows up on TV. It would be much better if we kicked out all the faggots!
- superkendall, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2But should Digg also be a tool that only one group can use? Right now Digg is not a tool that anyone but a devoted Obama fan can use. Is that right either, even if Digg is not traditional media? How are we ever to replace real media when alternatives go straight to the most polarized position?
- robbiemuffin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I call *****. You've got a monopoly on proper digg usage, do you? go play in your own sandbox.
- cryptoki, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1why so upset? your just apart of the neo maxi zoon dweebie... i can call anyone this, i can call anyone that, f this, screw that, name-calling with 0% accountablity. You are what is part of the problem. (the big problem with anonymous posters today). The way you present yourself would not only make you serious enemies if you talked to someone face to face like that, but get you kicked out of any school or form of employment. Not the few people who just happened to notice that on digg sometimes (rarely, but YES sometimes), there are in fact (especially) political articles that have 2 or 3 thousand hits and will not make it to the front page.
thats all im saying.
- sgtbutterscotch, on 05/06/2008, -5/+11I like the idea of the submission, but the last line about "media" does not make that much sense. That being said, it sucks that Digg is being bombarded with pro-Obama stories/anti-Hillary stories, because first of all, I get it, most of y'all are gonna vote for Obama. And second of all, I think all this Obama mania is deluding a vast majority of you into thinking Obama has a 100% chance of winning the Democratic primary and winning it all. It would be sad if somehow all the popular support gets thrown to Hillary when all the people who aren't on Digg, i.e. old people (thousands of 'em and mostly women), completely overshadow what appears to the average Digg user as the overwhelming support of Obama.
- darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -18/+52Digg is a social aggregator.
Allow me to explain: It means that more people clicked the thumbs up. This means that they agree. More people agree that Obama is better than Clinton.
It's really quite simple. ;)- eohano, on 05/06/2008, -17/+12Or there are people with more than one account, and people being paid to vote for particular submissions by the website that is hosting them.
Digg complains /all/ the time about Scientologists burying anti-Scientology stories and comments, could you possibly believe that the same thing is not happening for political news?- 5celery, on 05/06/2008, -5/+4vast digg conspiracy - or popularity contest among the internet media savy? Ockham's Razor, Ponce!
- KiraDnote, on 05/06/2008, -14/+0We know that, *****-for-brains. That doesn't make it right. That's why we have laws in this country so that main-stream media can't pull the kind of ***** that happens on Digg day-in and day-out. It's a travesty of a the political process. I guarantee you if Kevin Rose was pro Hillary he would put an end to this nonsense right away. That's why I call it corrupt.
- ayeroxor, on 05/06/2008, -4/+7"We know that, *****-for-brains. That doesn't make it right."
What the *****?!!?
WHAT. THE. *****?
People liking a candidate and expressing that on a ***** website is something that when explained "doesn't make it right?!"
Wow, you are so far gone there is no ***** way you're ever coming back to Earth.- cryptoki, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1When will you people realize, that those of you who say f this, and f that... 99% of anyone, doesnt give a **** what you have to say. At least until you can speak with sliver of decency. Digg is just a hotbed of emotial trash talk... thats why i dont take it too seriously, or count it journalism (duh)
- 5celery, on 05/06/2008, -3/+5Make no mistake - its a popularity contest. If you are not seeing your view represented - you are in a minority among those attracted to Digg. If it makes you sore to be a minority - go play on the Fox site.
- JoJoDilio, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3Yup, because people agreeing about something is a travesty. Having an open place to agree about that same thing is backward progress.
What we ought to have is an algorithm on digg that makes sure that both candidates are equally popular among the user base, by banning user's who like Obama until things have leveled out.
...
Because THAT is progress. - rossmcd, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4"I guarantee you if Kevin Rose was pro Hillary he would put an end to this nonsense right away. That's why I call it corrupt."
Nice circular logic... create a fictional scenario, then make up what the result would be (based on your prior beliefs), then use that result as "evidence" to prove that your prior belief was correct.
- ayeroxor, on 05/06/2008, -4/+7"We know that, *****-for-brains. That doesn't make it right."
- directedition, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7Well, more diggers anyway. If Digg was a representation of the people of the US, then Ron Paul would have won hands down.
- Bombos, on 05/06/2008, -3/+0n1. mebbe tru
- robbiemuffin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1well, that's rather idyllic, don't you think? people can flood digg by specifically playing it ... in the same way that the page rankings for anything economic will always show you the most active google manipulators.
- eohano, on 05/06/2008, -17/+12Or there are people with more than one account, and people being paid to vote for particular submissions by the website that is hosting them.
- humage45, on 05/06/2008, -6/+1actually it was 8.. but yeah, i agree
- BobOki, on 05/06/2008, -14/+7But Obama pukes pure freedom and ***** liberty!
- dafragsta, on 05/06/2008, -6/+23So what? Digg has drank the Kool-Aid. This is a democratic media site. It has no obligation to be either fair or balanced. In fact, it's supposed to represent the decisive voice of the public. You don't see articles that skew PRO waterboarding making it on the front page unless it's so blatantly naive as to be for humor value. No one ever said Digg owed Hillary Clinton a goddamn thing.
Maybe the submitter should ask Hillary Clinton what she has done for Digg lately.- Troy64, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5I think the Idea of this post is that it can get boring when all of the upcoming stories are about the same subject. The fact that it is about Obama/Hillary isn't the point. It is the lack of variety. If they were all about Scientology of the Iphone it would be just as boring.
- pilot3033, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2then uncheck the politics topics in your settings, you won't have to see them anymore
- Troy64, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3It's OK to see some political stories. It's Ok to see some Iphone stories It's when they all are the same is when it sucks.
It's never OK to see Scientology stories.
- Troy64, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3It's OK to see some political stories. It's Ok to see some Iphone stories It's when they all are the same is when it sucks.
- pilot3033, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2then uncheck the politics topics in your settings, you won't have to see them anymore
- 5celery, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7I think you are misunderstanding the kool aid cliche.
- dafragsta, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1Not necessarily. I think it's come to mean "all-in" for better or for worse as much as it means following a bad decision hyped by someone else all the way to failure.
- Troy64, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5I think the Idea of this post is that it can get boring when all of the upcoming stories are about the same subject. The fact that it is about Obama/Hillary isn't the point. It is the lack of variety. If they were all about Scientology of the Iphone it would be just as boring.
- KidFlash2, on 05/06/2008, -14/+8Obama is a CFR shill, vote Ron Paul.
- freshyill, on 05/06/2008, -6/+10Ron Paul is a ***** ***** lunatic. Vote Ron Paul!!!
- greenm1981, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Why?
- nakile, on 05/06/2008, -2/+26The only thing I have a problem with is that when Obama gains the support of a single super delegate, news about it hits the front page every half an hour. But when Clinton wins an entire state, people come running out and burry everything related to the victory before it even makes it out to the front page. I didn't see a single ***** story about her winning Pennsylvania for days. Heck, I don't think anything about it hit the front page.
Seriously...- 11oops, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2If they could bury your comment as inaccurate they would, just like they did the stories you mention.
- 11oops, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I wake up this morning to see the submission marked as inaccurate. Who would have guessed that a screenshot cannot accurately reflect reality.
- greenm1981, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5That's because the majority of people on this site don't like Clinton.
- Kyan, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1So what, the majority of white Catholics aged 50-75 sit around bingo tables saying how great Clinton is. And they don't have a signboard where people can pick up a magic marker and write: "This is why I hate bingo halls. Every damn conversation is about how great Hilary is or how bad and black Obama is. IS there anyone here who believes in having balanced conversations?"
Of course, the "Obamabots" aka true believers in Obama actaully wanted to make a difference, they should go to bingo halls and strike up conversations.
Meanwhile, if people like the submitter find Digg too Obamazealous, they, to can go to the bingo halls and invite those bingobots to join Digg.
- Kyan, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1So what, the majority of white Catholics aged 50-75 sit around bingo tables saying how great Clinton is. And they don't have a signboard where people can pick up a magic marker and write: "This is why I hate bingo halls. Every damn conversation is about how great Hilary is or how bad and black Obama is. IS there anyone here who believes in having balanced conversations?"
- notanidiot, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1No, tards, its because digg is supposed to show the stories you don't hear about all the time on TV. If I wanted to know that Hillary won Pennsylvania, I would just turn on the TV, and hear the squoosh squoosh of the media spreading open their buttholes and getting fisted by Hillary's lesbian ass.
- 11oops, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2If they could bury your comment as inaccurate they would, just like they did the stories you mention.
- onestrawplz, on 05/06/2008, -7/+11if you count on digg as your main source of news, you are an idiot.
people complain about seeing too much election news...i'm a girl and i don't really have an interest at looking at the 10 quadrillion submissions about boobs (i have my own, i can look at them in the mirror if i really want to), but i just ignore them. obviously, they were dugg for a reason, so apparently someone had an interest in it. bury or ignore if you have a problem, don't be a little bitch about it.- diggit23, on 05/06/2008, -3/+11dugg for *****
- kjm2664, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3[quote]
10 quadrillion submissions about boobs (i have my own, i can look at them in the mirror if i really want to)[/quote]
Pics, or I won't believe you. - Kyan, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6mirror? When the site goes down, you're supposed to provide a mirror.
- Startemus, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7Buried for speaking as if boobs aren't worth 10 quadrillion submissions.
- eschompthis, on 05/06/2008, -6/+5Ive learned months ago not to take (a what was suppose to be a technology website) serious in political terms. Its easily worst than fox news. at least fox news sometimes praises democrats. There's absolutely never been a pro Obama or McCain article hitting front page
- TonyLocNE, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Are you ***** serious... there's never been a pro-obama article on front page? When I type the name Obama into the digg search.. I instantly have 700+ articles come up.. 51 pages of Obama........ For *****'s sake, the first page has 15 Obama related articles that were made popular...
I did a random sampling of 20 out of the 50 pages, and I did not find ONE SINGLE ARTICLE about Obama that didn't make popular/front page..
*****! Couple days ago, there was a pro-Obama Star Wars video from youtube that was at number ***** one under "All"
What the sad part about all of this is, is at least half of these Obambfanistas cried about Ron Paul on the front page everyday... Yet they see no parallel when it comes to Obama... You people will be the sole reason I will not vote for Obama against McCain.
- TonyLocNE, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Are you ***** serious... there's never been a pro-obama article on front page? When I type the name Obama into the digg search.. I instantly have 700+ articles come up.. 51 pages of Obama........ For *****'s sake, the first page has 15 Obama related articles that were made popular...
- dn11, on 05/06/2008, -5/+7this is why digg users are hilarious
http://i32.tinypic.com/148hpuh.jpg - mastazed, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4i would rather see no anti-Hillary and/or Pro Obama propaganda on digg or at least in a section that isn't political. There are more relevant issues as far as political stories go besides the ***** drawn out process of the American election
- idavidtang, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Dugg for the article inaccuracy warning.
- TonyLocNE, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I can't understand if you're being sarcastic or not, so unless you're commenting on the fact that the Obamanista fanboys cried ***** on this article being inaccurate when it is literally the epitome of the phrase "cold hard fact," I buried you..
- comradeTJH, on 05/06/2008, -1/+11Apparently, it's a love and hate relationship: http://tjh.ch/lovenhate.jpg
- dagnome1984, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Digg can be such a powerful force. Too bad it's wasted on the two party system.
- eq2s, on 05/06/2008, -0/+22Mirror? I expanded over 500 comments looking for one.
- whaleplushie, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5"Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.“
HAHAHAHAHHAHA! Of course this would happen ;) - Zippo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Hey, I've been siding with Obama for much longer than the whole of Digg has... let's not forget how gung-ho everyone was about Ron Paul back not too long ago.
And let's face it, when the other choices are Clinton and McCain, can you blame people for siding with Obama? - profcornbread, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Mirror? There's not one at the bottom either....I checked :(.
- MikeSetera, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0What I hate about Digg: People submitting images with tinypic.com
- OaklandNative, on 05/06/2008, -0/+13Mirror:
http://www.thecaffeineproject.com/wp-content/uploa ...
- thebadkitty, on 05/06/2008, -46/+19Whoosh!
- polish97, on 05/06/2008, -172/+1749I call this a website with public submitted stories, not FOX News.
- arcooke, on 05/06/2008, -108/+46How would you like it if almost every story in the upcoming section every day was praising a candidate you didn't like? I see you casually ignored that part. From your bitter comment, I can confidently assume you're an Obama supporter.
- Coven, on 05/06/2008, -36/+134You know what that means? It means that more people like Obama on Digg. If you don't like it, guess what, you don't have to go on Digg! Go hang out on the Taylor Marsh forums if you can't deal with it.
- whatthefu, on 05/06/2008, -16/+35People also like to see variety too, you know.
- Coven, on 05/06/2008, -18/+25So block the 2008 Elections and Politics categories
- elnerdo, on 05/06/2008, -10/+7If I'm annoyed because I like to have a variety of ice cream and my mom only every buys vanilla, will never eating ice cream again solve the problem?
- KiraDnote, on 05/06/2008, -5/+0Unfortunately there is no solution for stupidity. You'll just have to live with it.
- ayeroxor, on 05/06/2008, -4/+5Do you really think complaining to your mommy will get her to cease to like Vanilla?
- IpecacNeat, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4The point of this website is that the articles with the most digs get to the top. That is what happens. It sucks you don't like it.
- fabriciom, on 05/06/2008, -17/+7I wish I knew how it felt to have a website where thousands of gullible, mindless users just click on your banner ads and make you money all day long. While defending their own pointless arguments...
- bruenig, on 05/06/2008, -2/+9If you don't like the media, you don't have to listen to them. There are plenty of fanboy blogs you can get your news from that will always filter it in your ideological direction. If you don't know of any such blogs, just watch the digg front page. Don't complain about the media since you have other options to suit your ideological bias.
- nmnnotmyname, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3Sure, Digg isn't perfect, but if you don't like it you could go back to FOX News also.
I'm gonna just stick around.
- whatthefu, on 05/06/2008, -16/+35People also like to see variety too, you know.
- beakerwimp, on 05/06/2008, -18/+41arcooke: You realize that the premise of your post is off base right? There are two major reasons why your argument is not logically sound. First, news organizations like Fox News and CNN have a certain amount of responsibility to the public to cover news in a balanced fashion since they claim to be news organizations, not public opinion meters or propaganda services. Digg is very different since its primary function is to sort by popularity articles matching the major concerns of Digg users. So saying that listings on Digg are "biased" is sort of a funny thing. Digg's main function is to list items of interest to the majority of its users so it is "biased" towards popular opinion (right or wrong) by its very nature. Secondly, even when news organizations like Fox News and CNN attempt to report the news in a balanced way there will still in many cases be a primarily fact-based way of looking at the issue. In other words, if every news channel reported today that grass is green and no news channels reported that the grass is red you would not be justified in claiming that news channels are biased on the issue of grass color. Do you see where I am going with this? So we know that just because a news channel (like Fox News) or social opinion site (like Digg) runs favorable stories about one side of an issue doesn't necessarily mean that the other side of the issue is getting short changed.
- bstew22, on 05/06/2008, -22/+14TRY HITTING THE ENTER KEY AND MAKING A NEW PARAGRAPH....AND I'LL TRY TAKING CAPS LOCK OFF.
- OoO3xOoO, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8Q4T
How dare they display so many stories that users...have....voted...for....to....be...displayed! - darkwing81, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0exactly. if you dont like fox news because they lean right then all you have to do is turn it to any one of the networks or MSNBS to get to left wing opinion. . .so what tha problem is?
- sarge96, on 05/06/2008, -11/+1DNFTT
- Abomonog, on 05/06/2008, -2/+8Well if this was a site run by a news corporation I'd say that the site was biased.
But hey, the news here is user submitted and user voted for. What shows up on the front page is what the average Digg users is wanting to see. Since Obama seems to be so popular with Diggs userbase I would reconsider my favorite candidate- rgranger, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Thanks. And since most people watching Fox News are conservative Republicans, they get exactly what they want to see.
- Abomonog, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Exactly, but with Fox it's only catering to an audience. Here the audience decides what gets presented. If the audience were conservative Republicans Mc Cain would be on the high horse here. But since the audience here is largely more liberal and Hillary makes a better Republican than Democrat Obama is the one who gets the praise. What makes it nice here is that it's not some corporate program director trying to ram an agenda down my throat. It's a million average people trying to ram their collective agendas down my throat. Makes it easier to sift through the ***** when there are an army of free opinions to peruse instead of one highly paid one.
- rossmcd, on 05/06/2008, -5/+16"How would you like it if almost every story in the upcoming section every day was praising a candidate you didn't like?"
That happened about 6 months ago with RON PAUL. I don't like him. I accepted the fact that Digg is a user-driven web site, and Ron Paul had lots of supporters on Digg, thus got lots of front page articles. I responded constructively by burying RP articles, and occasionally going into the comments section and sparring with the supporters.
Clinton supporters should do the same. Not whine about unfairness.- TheKorn2, on 05/06/2008, -6/+5THANK YOU!! The RP brigade was sooooo annoying. At least Barack has the possibility of winning, unlike RP.
- 11oops, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4Yeah, because the BO brigade isn't sooooooo annoying.
And ross, we can't even get a comment in without it being dugg down, let alone a front page article.- TheKorn2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1There's a world of difference. The RP brigade might as well have been voting to turn gravity upside down, or to turn the sky mauve, or to legislate that all rain must taste like cherry kool-aid. THAT'S what was annoying, that there was so much hype for someone that had NO CHANCE IN HELL of doing anything.
BO brigade is less annoying because he stands a chance, point blank!
- TheKorn2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1There's a world of difference. The RP brigade might as well have been voting to turn gravity upside down, or to turn the sky mauve, or to legislate that all rain must taste like cherry kool-aid. THAT'S what was annoying, that there was so much hype for someone that had NO CHANCE IN HELL of doing anything.
- Nougat, on 05/06/2008, -6/+3The big difference with the RPers was that they'd infer that you were an idiot, "sheeple," if you had anything good to say about anyone else ever. That's what drove me nuts there. I don't see that from the Obama supporters.
Full disclosure: I am an Obama supporter myself. Early on, I was very interested in Ron Paul, but the goofballs pointing fingers at me about him turned me off. - KiraDnote, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3All the anti-Hillary articles are justifiable complaints, but complaining about the total lack of balanced political news on Digg is considered whining? ***** off.
- rossmcd, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1I think you missed my point... Digg isn't about, nor did it ever purport to be about, "balanced political news." It's about rule by its users. If this article is the best that the Hillary crowd can get on the front page, then they're not using Digg as effectively as the Obama crowd. *shrug* I know its frustrating, but complaining about the difference isn't constructive towards changing it.
- chesstwin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Haha i love "bitter" there.
- stevelawrence, on 05/06/2008, -4/+8Hey, can you please create another of your little charts outlining exactly why you bother to visit a website which you apparently hate?
- oldcivic, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3BWAAAHHHHHHH!!! Cry me a river. How would you like it if all the people at school picked on you when you were a kid because you wore dorky clothes and had crappy lunches and... oh wait, you probably lived that.
- jpe81, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3...are you seriously complaining that people have a different opinion than of your own? If it bothers you so much, take a page out of your great leader's book and just misremember it.
- Handonam, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1qq
- Coven, on 05/06/2008, -36/+134You know what that means? It means that more people like Obama on Digg. If you don't like it, guess what, you don't have to go on Digg! Go hang out on the Taylor Marsh forums if you can't deal with it.
- Blazers, on 05/06/2008, -82/+41Obama is the Apple of the election... Fan boys sucking his dick left and right.
- beakerwimp, on 05/06/2008, -14/+22Blazers: If you are trying to say that Obama has put more time, care, and wisdom into the design of his platform than any of his competitors then I believe you are correct. Perhaps you are trying to get the point across that Obama makes really tough principled decisions (like redesigning the core of his OS from the ground up?) despite public opinion and in the end will be vindicated for it. Once again, I think you hit the nail on its head.
- nmnnotmyname, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3redesigning the core of his OS from the ground up... hmm... maybe he should have considered trying to make it good in the first place instead of trying to push out a poorly made OS and just pile modifications on for forever. Maybe the only reason he has to do it now is because if he doesn't he could become a thing of the past.
(This has nothing to do with politics. I thought it was worth mentioning how bad that metaphor was.)- beakerwimp, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2nmnnotmyname: Wait. You are saying that Apple's decision (possibly a forced decision depending on your view of the situation) in 1997 to drop most of the core of OS9 and start from scratch using NeXT as a base for OSX was a poor decision? It was one of the wisest decisions made in the technology market in the last 20 years. Having the ability to criticize your own position and then change for the better is one of the most important qualities a business (or candidate) can have. Obama does this on a regular basis. Holding absolute views on a subject that are set in stone is a good way to make stupid mistakes (ex: Bush, Clinton & McCain on the Iraq War).
- nmnnotmyname, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3redesigning the core of his OS from the ground up... hmm... maybe he should have considered trying to make it good in the first place instead of trying to push out a poorly made OS and just pile modifications on for forever. Maybe the only reason he has to do it now is because if he doesn't he could become a thing of the past.
- ferrite, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1Silly blazer you go forward and back not left to right. Or perhaps you might want to see a doctor.
- poploserdigg, on 05/06/2008, -7/+3They used to suck Ron Paul's dick, but he can't get it up anymore.
- beakerwimp, on 05/06/2008, -14/+22Blazers: If you are trying to say that Obama has put more time, care, and wisdom into the design of his platform than any of his competitors then I believe you are correct. Perhaps you are trying to get the point across that Obama makes really tough principled decisions (like redesigning the core of his OS from the ground up?) despite public opinion and in the end will be vindicated for it. Once again, I think you hit the nail on its head.
- poopdigger, on 05/06/2008, -61/+227Fox News caters to conservatives and shallow-minded people, and Digg caters to highly educated (nerdy) males who almost all support Barack Obama.
Neither represent the public.- tbbuccfan, on 05/06/2008, -45/+27Nice that I am being educated by a guy named "poopdigger" When you actually make money, talk to me about supporting a socialist for president. The reason DIGG is full of Obama supporters is because it is filled with a bunch of "sheep" that listen to whatever their liberal professor tells them. When you enter the real world, I will listen to your dumb views.
- m3th0dm4n, on 05/06/2008, -25/+7STFU
- bigbadgoat, on 05/06/2008, -7/+39What if he's an archaeologist who excavates fossilized dinosaur poop?
Can he talk to you then? - cupid311, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8Yeah... pretty sure you have no idea who he is or what he does. And as for me, I am in what you call "the Real World" I have a full time job, pay bills, pay taxes, drive a car, guess what.... I agree with him more than you. So next time think if what you are about to say makes any sense at all. Then just let it go.
- ThePenrod, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3I guess this means you didn't go to college?
- frazw, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1It's much easier to label people and dismiss them than to listen to arguments and make decisions based on evidence isn't it. Well if I am a sheep then I'm proud to be one because my own research suggests that Obama is the best candidate.
- Clark3934, on 05/06/2008, -10/+42Almost all support Obama?
According to this:
http://digg.com/elections/
More diggers support Ron Paul... it's just that he isn't in the race anymore.- d03boy, on 05/06/2008, -4/+23*is in the race
- Whaines, on 05/06/2008, -27/+39Supporting Ron Paul was just an internet meme, like Rickrolling.
- misguidedmonkey, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0Obama is the same way. Soon we'll all come out and support McCain for real.
- sweetholymosiah, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10Kinda like the Iraq war is just a bunch of 15 second film shorts cut between an unfurling flag
- 11oops, on 05/06/2008, -17/+6They don't support RP or Obama. They just support the latest fad and bandwagon. If Digg had swung towards Hillary after RP they'd all be on her *****.
- ayeroxor, on 05/06/2008, -3/+5You and your ilk go on dividing America. Please continue to convince yourself that people who support your candidate are the only "right" ones and everyone else is just on a "bandwagon" or following a "fad".
This will end spectacularly with people actually getting along together and accomplishing things and being peaceful and civil, just like it has worked for the past 8 years. - 11oops, on 05/06/2008, -6/+1You sure read a lot into my comment.... Did I strike a nerve?
- ayeroxor, on 05/06/2008, -3/+5You and your ilk go on dividing America. Please continue to convince yourself that people who support your candidate are the only "right" ones and everyone else is just on a "bandwagon" or following a "fad".
- dcollins, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4I love how all the RP supporters jumped ship to Obama, when they have the most opposite agendas. The problem is diggers will eat whatever the digg machine feeds them.
- Diderotten, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1@dcollins I support Obama's character, not his political party. I still won't vote for him, but I'll defend him in an argument if I see fit.
- weeeezzll, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You have to take the 19,000+ Friend/Diggs Ron Paul has and divide by three to get an accurate number. All of the Ron Paul'ers have multiple accounts that they post with to match their multiple personalities.
Man I would love to get my hands on the databases and run a few queries.
- caramba420, on 05/06/2008, -12/+32Digg doesn't cater to anyone. Kevin Rose isn't sitting at his keyboard deciding which articles make the front page. It is controlled by you and me. That's about as close to a representation of the public as you can get. Can you think of any system that would be better than pure democracy in deciding which articles get the spotlight? I'm all ears.
- Seldon2639, on 05/06/2008, -8/+14Did you seriously just claim that *we* represent the public? Wow. Diggers have their own biases, just like anyone else. To deny that is to pretend we're somehow more rational. The point of the picture is to illustrate that while we have a different *set* of biases, we still have bias. Our system is no less inclined toward the creation of popular media than Fox News. It's all about making sure we have the most popular story. It's like Fox News and ratings. More diggs = higher ratings, to imply anything different is to assume that there really is a massive conspiracy to keep information from us.
Of course, the massive conspiracy might be better, but that's another issue entirely- caramba420, on 05/06/2008, -4/+6I made no such claim. I said, "That's about AS CLOSE to a representation of the public as you can get." I made another comment responding to someone else stating, "collective opinion does not constitute absence of bias." I realize that Digg is not an accurate cross section of the American public. The difference between Digg and mainstream media is that no one person has absolute control over what gets reported. I think that's a big step in the right direction.
Now off to tinfoil-hat-land...The conspiracy that exists today in the media isn't so much about keeping information from us, as it is about inundating us with useless information, and outright lies. I would encourage you to read Blinded By The Right by David Brock to gain insight into that. That's the way that Fox News operates. AEI, PNAC, and the Heritage Foundation create wedge issues to polarize people. Then Fox News marches in lockstep with them. The whole idea of "Fair and Balanced" is, in and of itself, a farce. They have got everyone to buy into the idea that everything must two sides to it. In making statements like "some people say, '2+2=3,'" they are able to introduce absurd ideas into common circulation, without any accountability. - KiraDnote, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1It's real sweet when you can smugly defend a news channel that happens to work well for your view of politics, but it's a travesty for those who disagree, and it' proof that unregulated democracy doesn't work.
- frazw, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1"Wow. Diggers have their own biases, just like anyone else."
You mean like the public? Diggers do represent the public because they are a cross section of that same public.
- caramba420, on 05/06/2008, -4/+6I made no such claim. I said, "That's about AS CLOSE to a representation of the public as you can get." I made another comment responding to someone else stating, "collective opinion does not constitute absence of bias." I realize that Digg is not an accurate cross section of the American public. The difference between Digg and mainstream media is that no one person has absolute control over what gets reported. I think that's a big step in the right direction.
- nmnnotmyname, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4...
...
Yeah, OR it could just be that more people like something here? A lot of intelligent (and a lot of unintelligent unfortunately) people here, you'd really be surprised.- KiraDnote, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Surprised? Not quite. Children voice their opinions here and have equal voting status with people who can reason. That's fine for most forums, but it's ridiculous for politics.
- Farnaby, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5I work in the IS department for a large hospital. Maybe 3-4 people, myself included, in the department have actually used digg. I wouldn't say that is in any way a representation of the general public.
- fluxion, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3i hear you, and i agree, to an extent.
but by the same token, if you let the foxnews.com regulars vote on their favorite articles you'd get a very different picture of what the "public" is thinking.
but is anyone surprised when they visit foxnews.com and see that everything seems targetted to a conservative audience? digg's catering to a specific demographic is a bit less pronounced, yes, but among IT people Obama does poll higher than Hillary, so you also have to ask: are you really that surprised?
if you want broader points of views, go to different sites. seriously. i always check cnn.com and foxnews.com to get a general view of what the greater public is thinking, and i know that im not gonna find that general view at any one particular site. everyone leans toward some direction, foxs leans toward mccain, cnn toward hillary, and digg leans toward obama.
- Seldon2639, on 05/06/2008, -8/+14Did you seriously just claim that *we* represent the public? Wow. Diggers have their own biases, just like anyone else. To deny that is to pretend we're somehow more rational. The point of the picture is to illustrate that while we have a different *set* of biases, we still have bias. Our system is no less inclined toward the creation of popular media than Fox News. It's all about making sure we have the most popular story. It's like Fox News and ratings. More diggs = higher ratings, to imply anything different is to assume that there really is a massive conspiracy to keep information from us.
- liquidpele, on 05/06/2008, -6/+11Make that self-proclaimed genius males who have been on the internet more than outside in the last 4 years, several internet trolls, and very immature individuals who think it's funny to post random nonsense and propaganda about stories. I also second "tbbuccfan"'s command, your nic is not very indicative of someone I would listen to. If you were going for funny or clever, you missed the mark.
My question to you Obama supporters is have you actuall researched all the candidates fairly and evenly, and come to support him by that? Or do you just support him because of nice stories on Digg and around the internet? My guess is the majority is the latter.- 5celery, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4your guess is wrong
- peve00, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4ya, all of the highly educated nerdy young aged males..... that dont vote....
- 5celery, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1that must be why Obama is leading in every category of cast votes
- Tweekster, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Don't kid yourself, diggers are not the reason for that
- datagod, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5"neither represent the public"...
OR get dates... - charadesforkids, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3its a bit shallow minded to waste your time leaving that comment.
though the same could be said about this. - boester, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6highly educated?
- doctorfungi, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6You're an idiot if you think everyone around here is "highly educated".
- poopdigger, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I don't think they are, but they usually do
- collective, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Apparently you weren't here at the start of the campaigning when Ron Paul, a conservative, was so feverishly and extremely supported that he took up most of the top ten and spam begging for donations to his campaign was dugg up. He died out, and people wasted their money and so forth, and he was replaced by someone else. But it's nearly as depressing to see a candidate I actually like get all the support from the community as it was to see a candidate I didn't like. I have long given up on the concept of Digg working for a voice of the people in politics, unless you count an idiotic mob as a voice. Because whatever the flavour of the month of, there are people to creep out of the woodwork to digg up certain articles and digg down others. I've seen a pro-Paul digg and a pro-Obama digg and nothing is based on education and individual thought, it's all about bullying out the minority opinion.
- TonyLocNE, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2wow.. are you running for election this year? That was probably one of the most sane and logical things that I've read on here in awhile.
- tbbuccfan, on 05/06/2008, -45/+27Nice that I am being educated by a guy named "poopdigger" When you actually make money, talk to me about supporting a socialist for president. The reason DIGG is full of Obama supporters is because it is filled with a bunch of "sheep" that listen to whatever their liberal professor tells them. When you enter the real world, I will listen to your dumb views.
- JayKeaton, on 05/06/2008, -19/+48It's the Digg Illuminati who controls what we see. The ravid 2 percent of users who feverishly Digg and Bury what they want people to read.
- bjornski, on 05/06/2008, -5/+85Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do! We do!- letitbleed62, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12The Stonecutters. I knew they were behind this!
- VinceA, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6I knew it.... the Stonecutters are behind the Digg conspiracy of geo-political power
- J0nLightn1ng, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Now lets all get drunk and play ping-pong!
- poopdigger, on 05/06/2008, -3/+6It's MrBabyMan, for sure...
- breezytrees, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7I think it's less than 2%. 2% is 60k users, quite a bit. Last time it was possible to check, a mere 100 top diggers controlled 56% of the front page. Based off that, my guess is the top 1000 diggers (.03% of digg) control 90-95% of front page material. Top 10,000 diggers (.3%) control 99.9%.
Again, just guesses. The actual figure could be less (gasp!) or more. This is not based off anything since it is not possible to actually check the real figures anymore.- nmnnotmyname, on 05/06/2008, -7/+2Doesn't matter how popular the person who submitted the article was, if people don't like it it will be buried. Hence the image you're seeing here.
- ryuujin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5...what they're saying is that most people who use digg don't have very much power. A small group of people can submit a story and know it will go on frontpage because they have followers (or occasionally people who are paid) who will digg their articles. In addition, the zealots who spend more time on the site also can have a shared bias, that will play out more than people who use digg but rarely log in to digg up or down. This allows for unequal representation.
It's like in Fox news - I'm sure a journalist could do a pro-democrat piece, but even if they did, there's so many anti-democrat pieces flying around being pushed into the bigger spotlight by the people with more power, a single piece won't matter (but will allow them to claim some sort of balance in their reporting). So will digg have lots of republican stories on it? sure, if you searched. But the people with more time and more power (in the form of people who will vote for their stories) are putting up pro-democrat pieces, meaning this bias is carried.
- KiraDnote, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2@JayKeaton: I think you coined a nice new word 'ravid', from rabid and avid. I dig it.
- freshyill, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5Do ravid people have ravies? Rut roh Raggy!
- JayKeaton, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Cheers for the dig.
- bjornski, on 05/06/2008, -5/+85Who controls the British crown?
- Kautylia, on 05/06/2008, -47/+75Doesn't matter. Digg is still a more biased source of news than Fox. Sad, isn't it?
- Murdats, on 05/06/2008, -16/+29no because as people keep pointing out digg is not a news SOURCE, digg creates no new news, it just aggregates news and promotes that which the majority likes.
- Papajohn56, on 05/06/2008, -18/+10oh please, you digg nerds treat it as a source just like you treat dailykos as a source.
- sleepwalkers, on 05/06/2008, -5/+8Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, Dailykos *is* a source. It may not be a reliable or always accurate source, but it is a source. They create news content for others to consume, while Digg is simply an *aggregator* of that content.
They're two completely different kinds of sites. - str1fe, on 05/06/2008, -4/+5I guess I'll have to spell it out for you.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aggregator#Noun
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/source#Noun
Oh, and Papa John's pizza is pretty nasty. It's greasy as hell, I have to soak an entire paper towel in grease just off the top of the pizza before it becomes edible. - darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2You don't have to be here. If you don't like it, GO AWAY !
- digitdean, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5I almost think DailyKos is more pro-Obama than Digg is.
- sleepwalkers, on 05/06/2008, -5/+8Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, Dailykos *is* a source. It may not be a reliable or always accurate source, but it is a source. They create news content for others to consume, while Digg is simply an *aggregator* of that content.
- UTKEngineer, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8Similarly Fox News isn't a SOURCE. Fox merely aggregates stories which the majority of it's viewers like.
- ryuujin, on 05/06/2008, -5/+4Sorry, you're using bad logic here. Fox is not a news source in that they create no news, they create news stories. They report the news, which I would argue is almost exactly the same as aggregation. After they make the stories, they put them together into a coherant program - linking on the website, setting aside a specific amount of time to show the story, etc. This is an act of aggregation directly comparable to digg's frontpage system.
More appallingly, most news networks and newspapers use the newswires and newsfeeds for their sources - which literally is doing the exact same thing as digg, aggregating news.
This doesn't matter as much as the fact that if you make the news story or just find it, the act of displaying news stories all with a similar slant means you get bias carried through the presentation you give. - KiraDnote, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4MUCH of the so-called political news on Digg is manufactured, repackaged baloney, for the sole purpose of feeding the Digg frenzy for pro-Obama and anti-Hillary articles. That makes Digg a SOURCE of news. Anybody can write an anti-Hillary blog article and get it promoted to the front page of Digg. That doesn't make it legitimate news. It's just propaganda. Digg seems to work fairly well for everything but politics, religion and science. Science being a hidden religion, in that many people who are pro-science are simply brainwashed into believing science will save them, and yet they don't have a clue as to how to evaluate something in a scientific manner. They simply believe anything they read if it's cloaked in scientific garb.
- Papajohn56, on 05/06/2008, -18/+10oh please, you digg nerds treat it as a source just like you treat dailykos as a source.
- darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -10/+4biased by the people, not Rupert Murdoch (Fox owner).
- NSResponder, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4Your question presupposes that Hillary and Obama are equivalent. They are not. One is a run of the mill politician with a gift of gab, and the other is a power-razed harpy who must be stopped at all costs.
-jcr- Kautylia, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Your statement presupposes that Obama is infinitely good and Hillary is infinitely bad. Because if I only looked at digg, I'd have 100 good things to say about Obama, 100 bad things to say about Hillary, but no inbetween. Do you honestly believe that it's that black and white? You're a fool if you do.
- NSResponder, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2I described Obama as a "run of the mill politician". Obama is mediocre at best, Hillary, however, is irredeemably evil.
-jcr
- NSResponder, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2I described Obama as a "run of the mill politician". Obama is mediocre at best, Hillary, however, is irredeemably evil.
- Kautylia, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Your statement presupposes that Obama is infinitely good and Hillary is infinitely bad. Because if I only looked at digg, I'd have 100 good things to say about Obama, 100 bad things to say about Hillary, but no inbetween. Do you honestly believe that it's that black and white? You're a fool if you do.
- Murdats, on 05/06/2008, -16/+29no because as people keep pointing out digg is not a news SOURCE, digg creates no new news, it just aggregates news and promotes that which the majority likes.
- MattBot5000, on 05/06/2008, -17/+6I think you meant FOX "news"
- Whaines, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6You're so clever. You'd be even more clever had you said, "Faux 'News.'"
- nmnnotmyname, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5This is the first time I've seen this joke.
/*****
- kpmoore, on 05/06/2008, -16/+305Historically, Digg has consistently been a VERY biased source of political news. Worse than FOX, in my opinion. Although its unintentional, the democratic structure of Digg inherently creates a biased source of news. It's inevitable.
Once a majority of users share the same opinion (in this case, Pro-Obama), the stories supporting their opinions get more diggs and therefore more front page coverage. Once that begins to happen, Diggers who disagree with the majority are eventually turned away from the site. This occurs because a pro-Obama front page attracts more pro-Obama diggers and influences the opinions of the politically undecided. They eventually scare the pro-Hillary diggers away by completely burying Hillary stories and spamming the site with Obama stories.. I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm sure its a feeling of real hopelessness when you post a pro-Hillary comment and see it get buried to all hell. Clinton supporters no longer have any desire to get their political news from Digg because its become a Clinton-bashing site.
The opinion of the majority here is a very slippery slope when you think about it. The front page rarely has stories of conflicting opinions. Once a small majority exists, they are not only able to further promote their own stories, but also bury the stories of others. The majority grows quickly with a new user base and the easily-swayed opinions of the politically undecided. The minority shrinks quickly due to buried frustration.
Digg will only ever be able to accurately represent one side of each issue. Anyone who visits this site thinking its "fair and balanced" is out of their mind.- Atomic1fire, on 05/06/2008, -10/+6People hear what they want to hear.
You cant have something fair and balenced because then You have to cater to both sides
and that is not possible- utdrew182, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5It is entirely possible to have something fair and balanced, one side is just bored for half the story and the other is bored the other half. This results in far too many people changing the channel.
- ThinkBox, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1it's called "Ethics"
- johnfn, on 05/06/2008, -1/+20That's very true. I think one of the major problems is that people who only like certain candidates blanket downvote anyone who supports anyone else, no matter what points they make. It's frustrating to see someone pro-Obama getting voted up in an argument with someone pro-Hillary getting voted down, even though the pro-Hillary person is making just as good arguments.
- caramba420, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10Tyranny of the majority is an inherent risk in democracy. But I have yet to see any system that is demonstrably better.
- Kautylia, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Enlightened Dictatorship
- masterm1nd, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Representative democracy! I'd like to see that that be done with news and other stuff.
- Seldon2639, on 05/06/2008, -5/+6You are full of win and rightness. I could not have said it better myself.
- AdaAstra, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7I agree 100%.
- mcberg182, on 05/06/2008, -1/+11I dont know what your talking about. Having the Huffington Post on the front page everyday doesn't mean we're liberal here!
- thephosphorbox, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4Umm.. Digg is not a "source" of news. It's a collection of news from OTHER sources. Digg itself supplies NO news of it's own.. therefore how can Digg be fair and balanced, or biased either way? It depends on who submits what, and how many people digg or bury it.
- kpmoore, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Its not a source of news in the traditional sense; no one publishes articles or stories here. However, I would absolutely consider it a source of news because it fits the most fundamental definition: put simply, it supplies users with news. People read the front page of Digg for the same reason they read the front page of the newspaper. Both are a source of news. Digg can therefore most certainly be biased. And although the idea of a fully democratic story-submission system would seemingly eliminate bias, that could not be further from the truth. The system creates inevitable biases, as I explained above.
- bubut, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1TL;DR
- eschompthis, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3thank you for saying this and not ge burried, ive been trying to say this for months but of course i get dugg down
- unearth, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1"Once that begins to happen, Diggers who disagree with the majority are eventually turned away from the site."
That's true, but I would just like to point out that digg isn't the only site this has happened on. DemocraticUnderground (DU) is a very liberal political forum where articles get voted on in a way similar to digg, and Clinton supporters basically had to leave because it was getting so bad there (not just volume of stories, but forcefulness of arguments). The same anti-Clinton sentiment is on a LOT of websites, not just digg.
I don't make any personal judgments on Hillary supporters, but I really have no idea where they come from. - Sephaa, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1It could also be because what the candidate's themselves do has the most effect on the news that's reported about them, don't put all of the blame on digg...
- crossover523, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Created an account just to agree.
"Diggers who disagree with the majority are eventually turned away from the site."
- Atomic1fire, on 05/06/2008, -10/+6People hear what they want to hear.
- sarge96, on 05/06/2008, -5/+52I like how at the top of the list is some funny picture, notably beating ALL the election news.
- bearcat8543, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4well dude, its a funny picture. its obvious that that is more important.
- wrongonce, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2It is about lawns. LAWNS RULE!
- mickstephenson, on 05/06/2008, -6/+5How about this is an international tech site, and no matter how anyone else in the world wants you to vote, the government will naturally turn to ***** anyway.
- skankyBacon, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4How about it hasn't been "a tech site" for a long time now?
- BeavisMcSleavis, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1And it shouldn't be.
Do you NOT think that politics play a huge role in modern technology?
Monopoly's and the 700MHz bandwidth auction come to mind instantly and I'm sure that list can be added upon exponentially.
- BeavisMcSleavis, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1And it shouldn't be.
- skankyBacon, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4How about it hasn't been "a tech site" for a long time now?
- birkoph, on 05/06/2008, -33/+17 DIGG IS THE FOX News ON THE INTERNET. YOU'RE AND IDIOT OF YOU DON'T REALIZE THAT.
- caramba420, on 05/06/2008, -6/+10Fox News = The opinions of Rupert Murdoch
Digg = The collective opinions of millions of users like you and me
foxnews.com is Fox News on the internet
digg != Fox News
"You're and idiot of you don't realize that.'- birkoph, on 05/06/2008, -8/+1FAIL.
- poploserdigg, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Best. Digg Comment. Ever.
not being sarcastic. - vibrate, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Brilliant
ctrl+c
- caramba420, on 05/06/2008, -6/+10Fox News = The opinions of Rupert Murdoch
- jabberwolf, on 05/06/2008, -16/+10SUBMITTED BY HUFFINGTON POST SQUADS !!
We all know it simply takes a high percentage in a short time to post a page.
We all know DIGG posts them for people.
We all know DIGG censors certain stories from searches so they CANT be dug up easily. - mistergoomba, on 05/06/2008, -13/+8the people have spoken
- Ryan166, on 05/06/2008, -13/+7Of course digg is not going to be fair and balanced. The majority of users see Obama on their mom's TV and get all excited about "change", so much so that they log onto digg to submit anti-clinton articles.
- 5celery, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Riight, like all of Clinton's ex-advisers and delegates that have jumped from her burning ship, their mom's must be proud, but confused as to why they live in her basement.
- breezytrees, on 05/06/2008, -7/+11Correction: a small nitch of users (much much much less than 1%) controls 99% of what reaches the front page. Last time it was capable to do such calculations, the top 100 diggers (out of a total of 3,000,000 diggers) submitted 56% of popular content.
It is by no means a democracy of information and it definitely is not fair and or balanced.- jbassfretless, on 05/06/2008, -8/+5then leave. you won't be missed.
- BeavisMcSleavis, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Yeah, I'm pretty sure they already proved that whole "power digger" thing was false. Even though THEY were the ones complaining. Kinda ironic right?
- Kautylia, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You sound like those rednecks who say that to liberals who protest the war. It's a horribly undemocratic sentiment and I'm sad that people say things like that.
- jbassfretless, on 05/06/2008, -8/+5then leave. you won't be missed.
- Papajohn56, on 05/06/2008, -12/+9lol someone points out the truth to digg and diggers flip a ***** this is hilarious
- fluxion, on 05/06/2008, -1/+62000+ diggs frontpage flip-a-***** action eh?
- Xander512, on 05/06/2008, -7/+21Digg is 10X more biased than fox news.... and don't act like we represent general society either we represent just a small radical portion of it
And actually, I support Obama now, but I didn't support Ron Paul completely a few months ago and that overload of Digg stories and random comments about Ron Paul only made me annoyed and pushed me away (they made me kinda hate Ron Paul actually) - I think the same thing happens with Obama stories now to be honest. They really aren't changing anyones minds but just feeding the already diehard supporters'.
Also dont be one of those pompous assholes who thinks your Digg opinion is a more educated opinion because you did well in school and you follow non-mainstream (but just as biased) news sources everyday.... that makes you just as ignorant as everyone else- kwulf, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3I was one of those Paul supporters digging all his stuff up...and now I'm sorry for how annoying it was b/c I now see it everyday with Obama.
- jerrycurley, on 05/06/2008, -7/+2You sure ARE polish! You have to be to be dumb enough to think of Digg as being controlled by the "average" user. It hasn't been like that for almost 2 years now.
- TonyLocNE, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1this coming from a person who has been a member of digg less than 6 months?
- loopyloopy, on 05/06/2008, -3/+12I call it SPAM.
please Digg, allow me to customise my RSS feed so i dont have to trawl through this tripe. i find i'm using Digg less now as its getting harder to find the interesting stories amongst the forest of political spam. - PhrosTT, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3does anybody actually ***** around in the UPCOMING section? or is that just a couple hundred dudes running digg frontpage.
- rboyce, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3If you don't like the content that makes it to the front page, spend more time digging the stuff that you like in Upcoming.
- theradical, on 05/06/2008, -4/+14Yeah doesn't this just prove that Digg works? If the majority of people want to see pro-Obama stories than that's what makes it to front page. Next this idiot will be telling us that an election isn't "fair and balanced" because voters pick one candidate over another.
- BeavisMcSleavis, on 05/06/2008, -6/+8I call this poster a whiny bitch you doesn't understand the power of numbers and user generated content.
Go watch/listen/read any MSM and leave our niche site alone! - FearLess77, on 05/06/2008, -5/+3What the *****.
Fox news is conceptional the same thing! They cater to a specific audience in which they make their revenue on!
If no one wanted to hear fox's one side bias stories they would simply run out of business.- JesseOnDigg, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0fox doesn't present itself as catering to a particular market, it presents itself as 'fair and balanced'. digg has nothing to do with journalistic objectivity, and makes no claims to it.
- haikuFU, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Maybe the people of Digg are just smarter than everyone else.
- Zaeboes, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Man I hope you get 1000 diggs.
- Zaeboes, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0Nice!
1020!
- Zaeboes, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0Nice!
- RadiatedAnt, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1The fabled green border, it exists! my life is complete now...
- joemofo214, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1oh snap
- arcooke, on 05/06/2008, -108/+46How would you like it if almost every story in the upcoming section every day was praising a candidate you didn't like? I see you casually ignored that part. From your bitter comment, I can confidently assume you're an Obama supporter.
- JimboLimbo, on 05/06/2008, -106/+13THIS is the problem with you!
- Nowaiman, on 05/06/2008, -9/+2YOU are a person!
- HumanGlitch, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3meanie
- Pureeviljester, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1I call it... THE BITCH MUST LOSE!!!
she consciously lies and tries to get away with it! - cnhorsman, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0Why was this comment buried. This is a public forum. Anyone can post here. The stories are merely a reflection of what people want others to see at the time. There is no agenda on digg. It is completely democratic. People post stories about things they are passionate about (like politics).
- fatb0y42, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2wait wut
- Fkb797, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1no wait wat?
- hurt911gen, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4In Soviet Russia, the problem is YOU!
- tEhKewleSt, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5I'm so sorry that you got dugg down amongst a sea of super dugg comments...that must feel just awful.
- Nowaiman, on 05/06/2008, -9/+2YOU are a person!
- dshPls, on 05/06/2008, -141/+1350Maybe the general consensus is that Hillary would be a horrible president? Oh wait, it must be a conspiracy!
- kaelyiesta, on 05/06/2008, -32/+26"[...]Oh wait, it must be a conspiracy!"
If I recall right, that is EXACTLY what anti Ron Paul digg users claimed. It is nice to see things from the other side now that Obama articles are so abundant, but its still depressing to see so much hypocrisy.
When its your candidate, its popular content. When its another candidate, its gaming digg. Thats what I hate about digg, not that it is currently full of Obama articles.- dinot, on 05/06/2008, -18/+8No, what you hate about Digg is that it's not full articles speaking favorably for YOUR chosen candidate. If Obama gets more votes and becomes President, would you complain that our election system is biased? dshPls said it right: Maybe the general consensus is that Hillary would be a horrible president?
- Kautylia, on 05/06/2008, -2/+9That's the consensus of the small portion of digg readers who digg and bury all the time. Do you really think that digg is an accurate representation of national opinion?
- Murdats, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2so if the national opinion causes obama to be elected will you claim its a biased system?
- skankyBacon, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1He means it's not *necessarily* an accurate representation. That doesn't mean that the two can never coincide.
- Kautylia, on 05/06/2008, -2/+9That's the consensus of the small portion of digg readers who digg and bury all the time. Do you really think that digg is an accurate representation of national opinion?
- dinot, on 05/06/2008, -18/+8No, what you hate about Digg is that it's not full articles speaking favorably for YOUR chosen candidate. If Obama gets more votes and becomes President, would you complain that our election system is biased? dshPls said it right: Maybe the general consensus is that Hillary would be a horrible president?
- JayKeaton, on 05/06/2008, -29/+68Clinton and Obama are pretty much 50/50 in votes, so Digg is obviously showing a skewed view of things.
- evil-doer, on 05/06/2008, -5/+52its not skewed, its an accurate representation of the users of this site. middle aged women (hillarys base) arent very abundant around here.
- Intrepion, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7dude, I totally just tried to click on your icon... then I started laughing hysterically... I think I need more sleep...
- BJLStorm, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I tried to click on your icon to. ARGH!!!
- mc_hambone, on 05/06/2008, -10/+12Skewed towards people who realize that Hillary is an old-school politician that will do or say anything to get elected and that Obama offers the only real chance of change in Washington.
- andrewtheart, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3You're exactly right, but because this is Digg you're already getting dugg down. Typical...
- motogoat, on 05/06/2008, -5/+6If you think that Digg is somehow rigged to promote Obama, I'd suggest you're a conspiracy nut with too much time on your hands. It doesn't get any more fair than Digg. And just because there are more intelligent people on here than dumb people (quite the opposite of 'real life' (I'm sure statistics would prove that more educated people use news sites) doesn't mean you can cry in your cereal bowl because some people are smarter than you and the rest of Hillary's supporters.
- shadovvman, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5If you honestly don't see the incredible bias in Digg news coverage, I'm amazed you have the intelligence to feed yourself. Remember when Hillary won a primary? See any articles about in next day? Not a one. When Obama wins? Psssh.
- trvale, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1I don't think you understand how Digg works. It is stories submitted by its users, promoted by its users. If there were more Clinton supporters on this site then they would have all the front page stories. Am I supposed to digg up a Clinton story even though I don't support her? If you want more Clinton stories on the front page, recruit your Clinton supporting friends to start using Digg.
- shadovvman, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Yes, you are. You're supposed to Digg stories based on quality and interest, not on whether you agree with them. Why would you want your news selected based on idealogy rather than quality of reporting?
- darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -9/+5It's not 50 / 50 !
Obama has 1800+ delegates
Clinton has only 1500+ delegates (or so).
Based on the rules, there is a very clear winner here.- nonstop87, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3Obama: 1745
Clinton: 1602
Your figures weren't even ballpark figures, they just show ignorance.
Took me 5 minutes.
By the way, I'm an Obama supporter.
- nonstop87, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3Obama: 1745
- eschompthis, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1true
- evil-doer, on 05/06/2008, -5/+52its not skewed, its an accurate representation of the users of this site. middle aged women (hillarys base) arent very abundant around here.
- Somedude2137, on 05/06/2008, -3/+35nope... it just shows that most diggers are pro-Obama..... and diggers are not the only population in the USA by the way
- willrs, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1no *****, then why are you acting like its such a big deal?
- motogoat, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4You're right there and I'll give that to you. But you DO realize that demographics show that those who use the internet to get their news and who are active on news sites (which Digg is, last I checked)...those people....US, if you will, are more educated and more intelligent than those who get their news from television. That's not my opinion, that's fact.
So basically what you're saying (and again, I'll agree with you wholeheartedly) is that more intelligent Americans are supporting Obama while the less educated, less intelligent of those among us are supporting Clinton.
Very cut and dry. Thanks for pointing that out to us all.
- ralphthemagi, on 05/06/2008, -9/+18If that actually was the "consensus" then she wouldn't be pulling in 45%+ of the vote.
The reality is that Clinton isn't really that far behind Obama.
This is the Internet though. Interne
- kaelyiesta, on 05/06/2008, -32/+26"[...]Oh wait, it must be a conspiracy!"
