neothoughts.com — The political categories of socially driven news sites are unlike any others. Submitters are treated differently than they are in other categories. Stories and commenters are also treated differently. Users are banding together to get stories promoted which push agendas.
Aug 20, 2006 View in Crawl 4
flag564Aug 20, 2006
Ooooooh, like somehow I was hiding that I was a conservative. Since you are so full of yourself right now, why dont you post some of the many left-wing stories that are submitted by the people you're modding up. Or let me guess, thats OK for those stories to be on Digg, right?And the troll bit again... Exactly how am I a troll? Oh thats right, because Im not some leftist shill! That makes you a troll to these moonbats!Like I said dozen of times...The leftist on Digg are a bunch of lightweights.
spinchangeAug 21, 2006
There are many times when I am tempted to mark something as inaccurate because I feel like the digg user's customized headline and/or description is intentionally misleading from what the actual underlying story is or is saying.In my opinion, that's what comments and blogs are for = post the story, call it what it is (or what the actual author did) and then share your interpretation and/or comment.
helix400Aug 21, 2006
The author left out a major abuse of a small band of left wing diggers going through the upcoming stories and burying any right leaning submission out of the list altogether. In one thread, for example, 5 diggers actively worked together to mark a story as spam. Once it was off the upcoming stories (even though it was clearly headed for the main page), other posters continued to make comments in that thread because they previousy dugg the story.When anybody questioned why the story was buried, their comments were within a few minutes buried to -4. Hmm...pretty suspicious for a story already off the upcoming stories list. The user gronne was one of these people, and admitted to burying right leaning submissions as "Spam". Here is one of these threads: <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/political_opinion/Subjugated_Journalism">http://digg.com/political_opinion/Subjugated_Journalism</a>
dougs55Aug 21, 2006
You (directorblue) wrote that blog entry in January and one side hasn't left yet so maybe the system here works better than it's being given credit for. I don't watch Fox News but if I could click the bozo button when O'Reilly speaks and check the popularity rating in his profile I would.Flagging stories and users as liberal or conservative seems wrong to me. Isn't thinking that way falling into a propaganda trap ? Is it really not possible to criticize the President without being a Democrat ? Is everybody who says something negative about a large corporation has to be a hippie or a commie ?Also how would that flagging account for people from different walks of life or countries ? Would being from Iraq or China or Europe make someone a liberal or a democrat ?I don't think making it easier for people to ignore other viewpoints is necessarily a positive thing. There's already ample opportunity for that. I also remember the self appointed Internet pundits of 10 years ago saying the Internet was bad because people would always separate into common interest groups, funny how things work out.What I would like to see is for Digg just to disable the inaccuracy flagging for political just for appearances sake. People who didn't like a story could still flag it as lame.Digg could also make unofficial suggestions on moderation like slashdot does. (I realize that many would not read or follow them.) This could be along the lines of please refrain from name calling and ad hominem personal attacks. Try to get people to think rather than just call them liberal or conservative. Also make it a practice to read hidden comments and moderate up if you think the negative rating was unfair.I'd also like to be able to see the total up and down counts if I wanted and not just the sum.
soulcastAug 21, 2006
And his point is???Isn't user generated political content more representative of democracy than the traditional news top-down model?
crackhappyAug 21, 2006
@kp:in the interest of full disclosure for those that don't know, bloodjunkie = neophile = paid netscape bookmarker.and bloodjunkie = neophile = paid netscape bookmarker = bloodninja?Wizard Hat!
diggerdAug 22, 2006
@sentone:yes, c'mon now... "the entire digg community"?! How many times have I seen you and others declare in comments "buried as spam" "another LGF spam" or that *expletive deleted* *racial epithet deleted* *profanity deleted* doesn't get it...And can you deny there's a small group of folks (with rather large submission profiles) who support each other's opinions here? I'd not be surprised if y'all sit around coffee together - Starbucks in Pie Place Market or such? and DIGG via WI-FI whilst sipping your latte...8^)
charleighsmomAug 22, 2006
@ilyag:Opinion is defined as the view somebody takes about an issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgment. (msn encarta)Accurate is defined as giving a correct or truthful representation of something. (msn encarta) Not accurate then is not giving a correct or truthful representation of something. If an opinion is someone's personal view on a subject, then who are we to judge it inaccurate? It is THEIR opinion. If you disagree with someone's point of view, then go to the comment section and leave a comment! If you are too lazy to do that, then DON'T "bury this story" as inaccurate. . . "bury this story" as lame. Just because you disagree with someone's OPINION does not mean it is inaccurate. It's THEIR opinion. @diggerd:This is what I was trying to tell you. Did you get it this time??? LOL
charleighsmomAug 22, 2006
@flag564me thinks you hurt someone's wittle feelwings . . .notice how some people can't come back with answers to questions, just more of the same $hit . . .@OBKenobi:"The mainstream media is working primarily for ratings first. There is no unified left or right-wing bias, different news organizations have different editorial agendas.Just to divide up the world between left and right is foolish, because that's not how the world truly operates. There's much more to it than that.All this partisan talk only serves to promote the two dominant political parties in the US. What does left and right really mean in politics? It means nothing." This is YOUR quote, in this comments section. I have two questions for you:Why are the stories that flag564 submitted so offensive to you?Why is flag564 a "troll"?I think YOU are SPINNING . . .