ryanunderdown.com — Digg.com's inclusion of a politics section has given many political sites a springboard to attract a larger audience. For some of these groups the temptation to promote their political advocacy has proven too strong to stop them from violating Digg's terms of service. The websites listed in this article appear to have crossed the line.
May 21, 2007 View in Crawl 4
gab00nMay 22, 2007
f**k off you Neo-Con fascist pigs and shame to all you diggers who fell for this attack against Ron Paul. MrBabyMan is the real spammer on this website.
chewybassMay 22, 2007
It is called information control. I know several people that only read the high dugged articles or only the first page or two. During the prime time hours stories start flowing onto the front page and then move up in rank. If they can control what people are reading they can control their opinions. The problem in today's world is that most people opinions are the last one they heard from someone else.
mrviklundMay 22, 2007
TOTALLY AMAZING BREAKING!!!!!! A LIST OF 10!!!! DIGG NOW!!!On a serious note.And who cares. Digg should stay Tech and politics can go where every they like, we wont miss 'em.
richmondphotogMay 23, 2007
I like some of the Ron Paul stuff that appear here but when I read the headline to this digg submission the first thing that popped in my head was that there has to be something in there about Ron Paul supporters. I do not think that was a random thought.
tarran0May 23, 2007
elebrio,As a long-time mises reader I witnessed things happening pretty much as Mr Tucker described; When Digg opened up a political section, a few essays appeared discussing digg as an example of distributed editing. Somebody posted an article explaining precisely how articles worked. Mr Tucker encouraged people to join the site and submit articles they approved of, and to also noodle around in the other sections.Within a month, people started making accusations that mises.org and the personal political site of its president lewrockwell.com were "spamming" the site. While the accusations frequently bordered on the bizarre (big Dave buried an article written by the chairman of a Israeli political party opposing Settlements claiming that the two google ads tucked at the bottom of the thousand word article made it spam), they did have a point. While mises posts very scholarly, well-researched and well-structured, informative articles, they also post some pretty puerile crap in the blogs. Some of this crap was making the front page. I wrote Mr Tucker about what I saw as a "spamming" problem, urging him to try to apply some editorial control on what was being sent on to digg. I don't believe I was the only person to do so. Shortly afterwards, the volume of mises blog entries appearing on digg went down markedly. About that time I started working at a start-up and stopped reading digg.While I am sure that there are some people who go through and submit every article and blog-post from mises.org onto digg, I can attest to the fact that it is not something that the leadership is encouraging. They do make it easy to digg up articles of interest by providing links on every article. That's about all they do. Having looked at the stuff that is currently submitted to digg, I think the large number of articles is a combination of the sheer volume of more scholarly articles that appear on the website coupled with the popularity of the website. They publish a lot of articles on free-market economics. Since they are one of the few pro free-market think-tanks with a significant web-presence, it's not surprising that they have such a presence on digg.They also publish a lot of Ron Paul's articles. At this point Ron Paul has almost 400 articles on lewrockwell.com. Most of Ron Paul's' articles do get published on mises.org as well. Since they are a major repository of Ron Paul's writings, it's again inevitable that they will be aggressively submitted by Ron Paul's supporters.
bartscott57May 23, 2007
Don't make me laugh. That list is so biased it isn't even funny. Can't the anti-Ron Paul brigade realize that Ron Paul supporters aren't "gaming" Digg anymore than Barack Obama supporters (for example).
waynethemanMay 23, 2007
The creators of digg apparenty liked the idea of adding politics to the mix.If there's truly that much discontent, you could always petition digg to remove politics from it entirely *shrug*. Or better yet, steal their income and setup a new, tech-only competitor.
bundynomicsJul 19, 2007
Yes they are a cult, a cult that supports the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I will just say this: "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." ?Samuel Adams
bundynomicsJul 19, 2007
I smell bull sh*t...
bundynomicsJul 19, 2007
I guess your in the "all good flows from the government" crowd. Paul's point is simple, let everyone keep their money and if stem cell research is so good people will develop it on their own and/or donate to the cause. Good things do not happen because the government threatens its populace with jail if they don't pay. Coercion is bad, volunteerism is good. Get it?