What is Digg?22 Comments
- MattJF317, on 12/29/2007, -1/+35If it's a "secret item", why would you be sharing it in the first place?
- OregonCoast, on 12/29/2007, -0/+24Stop it! You are making far too much sense!
- sancho, on 12/29/2007, -1/+14I'm sorry, but this just sounds like common sense. Don't want other people to see it? Don't share it. Sounds pretty easy.
- fnaqzna, on 12/29/2007, -2/+12Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Buried. - maexus, on 12/29/2007, -0/+5My exact thoughts when this story first started to pop up. People love a good panic story though even if it defies common sense.
- mythandros, on 12/29/2007, -1/+5Digg is not our sandbox. This isn't a public utility. We don't vote for who gets to run digg which means it's certainly not a democracy. There is only one way to change how Digg is run and that's by leaving. Stop reading articles posted to Digg. Stop submitting articles to Digg. It's only when Digg's readership starts plummeting that you will see any change whatsoever. Until you vote with your presencence (or lack thereof), Digg's leadership has no reason whatsoever to change even a single inconsequential detail, let alone stop perceived censorship. As long as you remain faithful to Digg and continue using it, you are implicitly endorsing all the behaviors you see as unacceptable. In other words, your complaints create controversy which draws a crowd. It's the crowd -- the increased readership -- that tells those running Digg to continue doing what they're doing. After all, isn't Digg's goal to maximize their readership?
- WeaponMit, on 12/29/2007, -0/+3Really, what has digg come to when people are digging a story explaining something that should be complete common sense.
- grav3k33p3r, on 12/29/2007, -2/+4RTFA
- oldgal, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1if you want it private you are a fool to put it on the internet anywhere.
- BearinG, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1Looks to me like its NOT shared by default.. so if its shared.. you shared it
- dannysullivan, on 12/29/2007, -2/+3I agree -- it should be common sense that if you don't want something to be public, don't share it. But if you read the actual story I wrote (rather than the first sentence summarized here on Digg), you'll understand that many people using Google Reader clearly did NOT understand that sharing put stuff out in public view. But it also explains how while shared items were on a public URL, that was still generally pretty hidden since no one knew about it unless you told them. And then earlier this month, Google came along and just started automatically telling people it assumed were your friends about your shared items. So absolutely -- plenty of blame for people who shared items and now react by saying "I didn't mean for that to be public." But also some blame to Google, for adopting a new, opt-out system of proactively telling people about your shared list, rather than letting you be more selective.
- Bossa, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1exactly!!! Isn't it Digg???
- kahrn, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1http://digg.com/tech_news/Kevin_Rose_Jumping_Out_o ...
- 4twenty, on 12/29/2007, -0/+0 A HowNotTo article!
- vroom171, on 12/29/2007, -2/+1Digg is really going downhill.
Its a sad sad day when articles like this are in the technology section. - inactive, on 12/29/2007, -4/+3noooooooooo
- demonsnake69, on 12/29/2007, -5/+3Google and privacy don't belong in the same sentence.
- danielgilbert, on 12/29/2007, -5/+1Well done Lt. Obvious.
Your father would be impressed - Mithivh, on 12/29/2007, -6/+0Common sense for the win...
- Mithivh, on 12/29/2007, -6/+0Common sense for the win!
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is