What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
244 Comments
- OneManArmy, on 10/12/2007, -19/+615An excellent comment I came across on slashdot regarding this whole HD DVD thing:
----------------------
While they can do what they want on their own site, it is more a matter of credibility than anything else right now. The whole revolt isn't even about the HD-DVD key. What has people feeling burnt is the fact that Digg purports to be about free and open user-driven content in a democratic setting, and what we're seeing here is a cabal of admins who are subverting the entire process of the system to suit their own whims.
Now as I said, it's not even about the 128-bit key anymore. And it's not about the DMCA or its merits(or lack thereof). The problem goes much deeper than that, and the encryption key debacle was more of a catalyst for what the more perceptive Diggers knew was going on all along but never really had any proof of. See, it's not just any posts containing the number they're removing. The Digg admins are removing and banning any discussion on the topic, even legitimate discussions on the ramifications of censorship in the user-driven internet era. Quite a few legitimate and thought-provoking discussions got clobbered when the admins got ban-happy today.
They have unwittingly set themselves up as a prime example of what can go wrong when marketing dollars(it is being reported that the HD-DVD guys throw ad dollars at Diggnation) meet the voice of the people. It is now being said that the Digg admins are stepping in and removing "objectionable" content when it conflicts with the will of their advertisers or displays any anti-Digg sentiment. While I'm sure this is good business sense, it's a very ugly way of being outed as a shill and a fraud to your readers. Digg is supposed to be the underdog who fought the status-quo and beat overwhelming odds against "the system". Now people are finding out that Digg has become the system, and they're a bit disillusioned that their hero Mr. Rose is just like any other business man who is out to make a buck. But like I said, the admins of Digg are obviously free to do with their site as they see fit. But Digg is only as good as the people who contribute to it. Kiss them good-bye and you kiss Digg good-bye.
---------------------- - Azimuth1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+328The irony is that when they started deleting submissions and banning people, it exploded, hundreds of submissions containing the key were created, and everyone was spamming it all over the place. Now that they've stopped cracking down on it, there's just one left on the front page. By trying to cover it up, the Digg admins actually helped to spread it even further.
- Jrr6415sun, on 10/12/2007, -5/+253At digg, we're not just a news site, we also create news when we feel like it.
- smithfly114, on 10/12/2007, -12/+124Is anyone else wondering if the HD-DVD Crack might have been leaked on PURPOSE? This could possibly increase demand for HD-DVD's to a level that will help win the format war....
It's possible. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+96They really screwed themselves by sending the cease and desist letters in the first place. Now the number is pretty much firmly established as part of internet history.
Oh, by the way, check google news. We're frontpaged! - Chairboy, on 10/12/2007, -35/+107This will probably get dug downwards into the stoneage, but the "user rebellion" wasn't so much something to be proud of as it was an outbreak of mental retardation. All the folks posting and reposting the code have no stake in the website, so it's a meaningless gesture. The people that'll be affected by a lawsuit are the folks running the site.
It's the old ham & eggs breakfast example of involvement vs. commitment: The chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.
The digg users posting the HD-DVD code over and over again are the chickens in this case, and the people who can actually lose money and be sued into oblivion have been called the pigs.
(golf clap)
Bravo. - DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+70It went down around 2am EST.
- glasgowm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+63Yes it went out down for 10 minutes as stories were being dugg too fast
- lordthor, on 10/12/2007, -17/+75I own the dvd hex key....
Digg can't lose a lewsuit about intellectual property rights, to a company that doesn't own that intellectual property.
http://digg.com/tech_news/I_OWN_the_HD_DVD_hex_key_Those_DMCA_letters_are_crap - jsmucker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+61Lots of us.
- vemerge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+57@nerfdude: the BBC has no credibility? Are you a viewer of FOX News by any chance? The BBC has more credibility around the world than most news sources.
- manifestdata, on 10/12/2007, -18/+68Good comment chairboy, good to see that there are some digg users who actually think before posting. The problem is that there are all of these pseudo-hacking preteens who think they are "l33t h4x0rs" because they visited a Doom9 post and got the key. The funny thing is, most of these kids who keep reposting they keys have no idea what to do with the key or even have HD-DVD drive in the first place. Pretending to be a hacker seems to be coming back in style for these kids.
- gklitt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+48"The site collapsed under the weight of the attack at one point."
Was anyone aware of this? - daborg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+48Count the number of negative diggs on your comment and you'll have an idea.
- an7agonist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42As much as I love it digg in the news, I hope the next story isn't a company suing Digg because of this whole thing.
- flashboy131, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39I only see this "experiment" as useful for Digg. They will most likely change Digg so they can better control an event like this next time. Pretty cool and pretty lame at the same time. The free press from this is probrably only going to generate more ad money.
- JeFurry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+36@nerfdude:
So what would you consider a respectable news source?
I admit I'm biassed, living in the UK, but my impression of the BBC News service is that while they're not perfect, they're far more professional and impartial than most, and I've yet to see them equalled in trustworthiness, let alone beaten.
Don't get me wrong - I'd *like* to find someone even better. I just don't expect to. - lordsandwich, on 10/12/2007, -4/+38Let's also keep in mind the MANNER in which the Digg admins attempted to censor the submitted articles: no warnings, no explanations, nothing. They simply went ahead and made offending articles and users vanish off the site forever, and continued to do so even as its own users started protesting.
Honestly, if they'd simply put up a notice saying "Hey guys, we're in a legal bind right now so at least for the time being we have to pull stories containing the HD-DVD key, hope you understand", this wouldn't have exploded into a full-scale riot. But no, Rose and Adelson waited until the site almost collapsed to even address the public.
Argue all you want about whether this was/wasn't about freedom of speech. The fact remains that Digg treated its userbase as though they were irrelevant and expendable. You SHOULD feel angry and insulted. - glasgowm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38Theres 50 articles on us on google news.
http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&ned=uk&ncl=1115941619&hl=en - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35Why don't we redirect this anger to our representatives now?
- themarq, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36@onemanarmy
First, it would be nice if you had cited the source of your quote, I know you said it came from /. but who made the post.
Secondly, he (or she) is absolutely correct right up to the last line. Digg is here to make money, make no mistake about it. However, much like television it can and will be profitable by pandering to the lowest common denominator. It has already happened, look what happened when they made the shift from tech-only to a wide net of news in general. The hardcore techies either left, or chose to ignore the Paris Hilton section of the site, meanwhile a whole new cast of morans showed up to start posting garbage that was dugg to the front page in a matter of seconds (ok minutes). I don't have the technical skill to prove my next statement, but I would bet you a billion dollars that the tech stories get far fewer diggs today than do the stories from youTube or celebrity news.
In short this is the immutable truth: the market will find digg, even if every "top digger" left the site never to return; 10000 monkeys with 10000 typewriters are waiting in the wings.
That's why this whole HDDVD fiasco is 100% positive for digg. Sure, yesterday afternoon everyone and their dog were shouting "f--- you Kevin, suck it digg, you've seen the last of me!!!! omgrolfbbq!!!!11!"
Do you think digg gives a tiny rats ass? It's getting free advertising on the BBC today. - mozisbored, on 10/12/2007, -17/+47thats pretty cool
- themarq, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36Jesus, I have been using firefox for so long now I was about to post; "What ads?"
Whoops - nickbender, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31I was pretty pleased with the fact that Kevin finally popped open a bottle and started watching his ship go down.
Revolution? not quite... but I hope we don't lose digg... i'd have nothing to do at work. - kahrn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34The fact that the HD-DVD key was posted multiple times and that there was a rebellion had almost nothing to do with the MPAA or the Key, or anything else. It was all about Digg going behind our backs and treating the user like ***** despite the fact that the user is all digg has, and that angered many many people.
Digg betrayed it's users. The users just wanted to get revenge. Revenge is sweet. - WileEPeyote, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32then why are you still here?
- Humptydank, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31>> The founder of Digg has now decided not to censor the information, telling users: "If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying".
First of all, thank you. Now I hope that all these "activists" spend as much energy defending Digg, should it be necessary, as they did bringing this whole episode to a head in the first place. That includes financial support for a potential legal defense fund.
In other words, with your demonstration you pulled Digg into Iraq; now you have to be prepared to see it through. - IADTatami, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26If you took the time to spam digg, you might want to also take the time to write your representatives and tell them what you think about the DMCA. And the elected officials who support it.
- codyman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22that's interesting... everyone here really has increased the language of using "us" regarding this and other situations... "our" community here at digg, comprised of thousands of users who do not know each other yet have (most often than not) very similar views on technology, are here together, discussing issues / products from all around the world,even though one might be sitting in his cubicle while another watching tv and yet another not paying attention to biology class.... if at all, the biggest story about digg is not hd-dvd codes but rather the fact that a community of strangers have befriended one another where they can continue their daily lives yet still make a difference... thats a news story
- fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -59/+80On behalf of everyone who didn't submit hundreds of stories about the same number, I'd like to thank everyone who did for making us look like a site full of ***** retards once again.
At least you chumps only attacked digg this time, instead of yahoo/dell/netscape/etc. - Jalaxians, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Hey - it was because of this article that our found out about Digg - good on the BBC!
- PatrickM2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22"The community isn't taking a stand. You are not taking a stand when you spout off anonymously. Taking a stand would be putting your REAL name behind something."
My real name is Patrick Moran, from Lexington, SC USA and I support Digg in it's action. If a lawsuit / fine results, I'm willing to help with what I can financially, and I'm writing a letter to my representative now. - gklitt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19It's also interesting that they call it an "attack".
- Layne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Digg accounts for 1% of all US internet traffic? Sweet.
- TheTap, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18The end result is that Digg gets lots of exposure. Whether you like that or not, this is a community driven site and a broader community base is a good thing.
Kevin is running a site that exploded in size and popularity. So the admins made a mistake. Big deal. They learned from it. We all make mistakes.
I still love Digg. - Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16@JeFurry: I'm American and I depend on the BBC to get news about America! At least they do inquiries into their objectivity every now and then. Never heard of an American news source do that.
- GeofG, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20“Am I alone in being the only one who thought the whole row was meaningless and insignificant? The premise of the "revolt" wasn't even warranted. There's no free speech issue here.”
As pointed out by others (e.g. onemanarmy), there are fundamental speech issues involved here:
1. Digg claims to be a news site. Unlike Wired and Slashdot, it took down the number – some suggest because of sponsorship. To what extent should relationships with advertisers be permitted to determine what news we see? Should advertisers be able to censor content? Should their interests outweigh those of users? They certainly do in most media, but that doesn't make it right or healthy in a democratic society.
2. Many users complained that Digg's silently removed stories and comments. So a second piece of information was censored – the fact of censorship itself. I agree with those who found this more troubling than the removal of the number itself.
3. Selective censorship on Digg failed. How does on deal with a situation in which many or most users make this issue their priority? One comment suggests this is why news should always be chosen by “experts”. Are you comfortable with that approach? I'm not – but then how do you deal with censorship by a mob?
4. Should the law protect this number? Regardless of whether it is copyrightable, there are legitimate reasons for protecting some numbers (my credit card number, for example). Is it reasonable to engage in broader censorship of legitimate discussion in order to protect Hollywood's business model? At what cost?
Even if we agree this was a tantrum, there were (and are) important issues at stake. I am certain that we will not all agree on the answers to those questions; I even doubt that we will be clear on our individual response to them. - EricAnderton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@smithfly: I doubt they released it on purpose - but all this press will have an impact.
But it is possible that since HD-DVD is easier to copy than blue-ray, the sale of HD-DVD players and movies alike will only *increase*, simply because blue-ray has created an artificial demand for such qualities. If everything was as promiscuous as VHS was (only without the quality issues), then we'd see the same kind of market we had before all this crap: a market driven by cost, quality and availability of a recording and it's subsequent playback.
DRM doesn't lock customers in, it locks them *out*. Remove the locks and people come back for more. - DephexTwin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16You make a great point, but remember one thing: it just so happens that this pig lives off of fried eggs all day every day.
Did I just blow your mind? - piccadilly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Just joined digg because of this article. You go, guys.
- jspegele, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13The submit page went down for a while, and new stories weren't reaching the homepage. I'm not sure that this was a collapse, though. It seemed more like Digg attempting to keep new HD-DVD stories off the site.
- WileEPeyote, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20The community isn't taking a stand. You are not taking a stand when you spout off anonymously. Taking a stand would be putting your REAL name behind something. What was done here yesterday was called throwing a fit, I've seen my 3 year old do it many times.
- bnl771, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Digg will come out way on top. Free publicity!
- JD52, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15I will happily contribute to their legal fund.
- darthsabbath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I posted the key a few times... 2-3 maybe... and I fully supported this revolt. My name is Phillip Moore, from Starkville, MS.
- AnotherUsername, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12How can you possibly say that digg users have "no stake in the website"? The entirety of digg.com relies on the users. Users contribute the content, users vote for content. What you're saying is akin to a politician claiming that citizens have no stake in the government and therefor should quit throwing tantrums when the elected officials do something unpopular. This is why the very 1st amendment in the constitution guarantees freedom of speech.
- O9f911O29d74e35, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12What has happened with this whole controversy has been one of the more interesting events to take place on the Internet recently. I don't know what will happen to this site as a result of the actions of the admins and the users, but I am once again encouraged by the resolve of a community, whether virtual or physical, taking a stand and getting change.
- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The gizmondo story just made it onto the drudge report.."geek riot" lol
- Xexr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This is brilliant,
It certainly deserves mainstream attention, DRM is a hot issue, which should recieve from more attention than it already does, the sooner content owners realize this is crippling them the better! - steviedisco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I do wish the BBC hadn't used the term blogosphere. Sounds like some random flubber-like experiment by Willy Wonka.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 246 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is