What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
161 Comments
- kevinrose, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27There has been a lot of discussion lately about Digg's acceptable usage policy and what terms of service/privacy rules we practice. We decided to put more direct links to help remind people about our policies, and maybe keep some of the flaming, spam and general abuse under control.
- DewayneSmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You can't link a Digg to Digg. Common sense.
- TheBigDI(K, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4what about my icon?
does that count for pr0n - cjsan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Good. Hopefully we will never have to endure the rath of another "Koolaidguy" again.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well I didn't agree to these "Terms of Use" when I signed up so it doesn't apply to me. Move along.
- manfesto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just out of curiosity, how did you stumble upon this link?
Oh, and Koolaidguy was a troll. There've been a few (and yes, some Digg comments are on level with trolling), but at least by requiring registration to comment, there aren't many trolls (the one real caveat of /.'s Anonymous Coward tag is the trolling community abusing it), and they tend to get modded down, reported, and banned. - samureye, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Never heard of "Koolaidguy". I was under the impression 98% of commenters were idiots here.
- cecil_t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Services are available only to individuals who are at least 13 years old" - well there goes half of the user base
- seenthefuture, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@samureye
98%...that's 'bout right. - kyote, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"(ii) use as a Digg User ID a name subject to any rights of a person other than you without appropriate authorization;"
Does this mean albertpacino needs to get a new digg id? - daredevil73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not sure that I want to remain a registered user.
From the TOS -- You shall provide Digg with accurate, complete, and updated registration information. Failure to do so shall constitute a breach of the Terms of Use, which may result in immediate termination of your Digg account.
From the user profile page:
member name: daredevil73
real name: [none entered]
location: [none entered]
aim/yahoo/msn/icq/gtalk: [none entered]
my website: [none entered]
Not sure that I want to provide all this info for digg. Anyone else feel this way? - hcsteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm surprised that no one has yet pointed out Section 5: Content Submitted Or Made Available For Inclusion On The Service. This section puts all submitted content under the Creative Commons Public Domain License. In my experience, most services either claim exclusive rights to submitted content or leave ownership and distribution rights to the submitter. Interesting choice.
- DogHumpsMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Kyote sez: Heck, I was more curious as to why Digg was incorporated in Delaware and not Nevada. What tax breaks/corporate laws were there that Delaware had that made it more appealing. oh, well.
Not uncommon. Quite a great many corporations incorporate in Delaware. 400,000+. Here's a link that will probably answer your question. http://www.delawareintercorp.com/why.htm
As for the TOS, if you act like an at least semi-civilized human being, you'll never have a problem. If you can't, you have far bigger problems than getting banned from an internet news site. Like the fact that eventually you will become so complacent talking like a complete assbag to others on the 'net, there will come a time when you will begin talking to people in a simial fashion in real life. And then someone will kick your head clean out your ass. At that point, you will have learned a valuable lesson. - phpMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This couldn't be in response to the bloggerbusiness or PriceRightPhoto debacles. Nah.
- dazzed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I will never understand why lawyers who write terms of use/privacy policies insist in WRITING IN CAPS.
- Cabbage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This didn't happen because of stupid flammers and bashers. it happened because of the millions that pricerite is losing becuase of digg users.
If the people who run digg(not kevin rose...he probably spends his money all day) enforce these things strictly, digg as we know it could die off completely.(ie all the news stories that are actuallt interesting will not be allowed) - vodkamattvt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Better safe than sorry, but I dont think this will save you from the lawsuites from that camera store. Digg has already cost them millions and they want justice!
- Lewisham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The source hop thing is certainly interesting. People are warned about it before submission, but do it anyway. I wonder exactly who is going to police this. I fear an Invisible Hand is worse than the community mods of /.
- samureye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Foogdogg, you try to submit any links with digg.com, such as digg.com/spy and see what happens.
This happens to make digg a very serious place now, no more flaming and acting like idiots, finally, people are gonna get banned a lot more now hopefully. No more repurposing information, yay! Ban them all! - scottevans, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1#9 to create separate user accounts with the intention of artificially inflating the .digg count., blog count, comments, or any other Digg service.
LOL...well there goes AlbertPacino's digging habits down the drain. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Man, I never read the fine print. Too Lazy. Someone give the run down on this Alphabetical painting titled Terms of Use and Privacy.
- alevel27mage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Never heard of "Koolaidguy". I was under the impression 98% of commenters were idiots here."
OMG TOS!
"By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree not to use the Services: 1) to abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other Digg users;"
Wait, that's like half the comments :( - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is related to something that has been bothering me lately about digg. It is being run as a business, which is what they want it to be. But really, digg is a community and it should be run as such. Some random thoughts.
Disband the corporation and redo digg as a non-profit
Move from digg.com to digg.org
opensource all the code thus turning over features to the community
subsist on donations from the community who's site this is. - Bigfat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1""Services are available only to individuals who are at least 13 years old" - well there goes half of the user base"
Thank god.
I was getting sick and tired of Diggs about piracy and other random crap. I just hope this gets enforced. - Roger_Ramjet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is what happens when you raise a ton of venture capital money. Lawyers get involved, and blammo, Kevin Rose loses his sense of what made him popular in the first place.
Sigh. This is the first step, gang. - Brett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You agree not "to submit stories or comments linking to affiliate programs, multi-level marketing schemes, sites/blogs repurposing existing stories (source hops), or off-topic content"
Damn that eliminates 90% of engadget post! - DewayneSmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Is there any reason you're using tinyurl.co.uk?
"The frigging tinyurl is larger than the URL itself!"
Answered by me in the third comment. - F00b4r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My philosophy is ignore the rules and comment on what you want. Commenting is to supply your opinion. If it insults someone, too ***** bad. Same with the news. Remember the pornographic iPod videos? That's major news. Sure, ban everything to eighteens-and-up. It matters very little, because we all know teens will register anyway.
If you get banned, just don't use digg anymore. These fineprint rules never actually get enforced. When they are, people get pissed off. - RMuffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I see a problem here...
We never agree to it, so can we be held up to it? - kewldude606, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"you will not use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site for any purpose without our express written permission. Additionally, you agree that you will not: (i) take any action that imposes, or may impose in our sole discretion an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure; (ii) interfere or attempt to interfere with the proper working of the Site or any activities conducted on the Site; or (iii) bypass any measures we may use to prevent or restrict access to the Site;" = greasemonkey?
- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No more OS X86 diggs. It's against the DMCA.
It's also going to be hard to nail the next PriceRightPhoto since the message could be pulled as libalous until a court decides one way or another. (Which or course it never will because it was pulled.)
So who want's to help me start "Drilled". The new "Digg" with no TOS until it get's popular enough to sell to some sucker who'll put a TOS on it and ruin it to cover their ass.
I see social bookmarking going the way of P2P. Shut one down and start a new one. - sujeet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The Terms of Use shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of California, as if made within California between two residents thereof, and the parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court of San Francisco County and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California."
I don't get this. If I'm an international visitor and not bound by the juridiction of the United States, will I still be treated as a resident of California?
Also, if the company is incorporated in Delaware, why does the ToU make references to California in such detail and such binding terms? - gwjc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0eliminated, I meant (though eliminatede does seem cooler)
- Disodium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Umm anyone got cliff notes? I'm way to ADD to read all that legal stuff
- goliath553, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0why are ppl diggin this?
- y2048, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0gwjc: they changed it then - it didn't say "with the exception of accessing RSS feeds" originally.
I wonder if they made any other adjustments... anyone have the original to diff against? - Ruiner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Its not anything to worry about. I'm glad to see it. I think its was needed because of losers like koolaid guy who are just trying to get attention because mommy is to busy sucking ***** and smoking crack to pay attention to him.
- F00b4r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I guarantee you, if people get displeased and digg doesn't do this, open-source clones will spring up. PHP, Perl, you name it.
The only problem is the community. We'll see how this comes out. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I also forgot.
Open up all the books so we, the community that makes digg digg, sees what's going on. - WikiTerra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hey, it says they don't own the comments. Cool. It automatically falls under Creative Commons. Wait...I get to edit other people's posts?
- oldcyborg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It looks like a standard EULA to me!! Nothing reached out and grabbed me by the Big Kahunas, so I think it's a good thing. :)
It is protection for the site, and in the unfortunate instance that the guys have to strike someone from the register, It is very necessary thing. You gotta have the paperwork, ON FILE...
It's cool, It's a digg!!
Cyborg - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> #7. To submit stories or comments linking to affiliate programs, multi-level marketing schemes, sites/blogs repurposing existing stories (source hops), or off-topic content.
Oh dear! There goes half of Digg's content right there! Have fun enforcing that. - Terrx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Because many geeks are cheap bastards who would rather rip something than pay for it."
I swear the first day we can bittorrent matter I'm getting a damn Escalade. - GRIMREAPER187, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hi Kevin Rose !!!!!!!!!!!!! I feel like a movie star graced us with his presence. Oh so kevin wrote it and is a lawyer now too. wow thats multi tasking
- manfesto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@whoatemydigg
There was a time in the very beginning where Digg didn't have comments - there was also a time when /. didn't have comments. It didn't seem nearly as communal then, though. Though the debates are often rather childish in these comments, there are a few gems and some occasional insight. Debate (well, civilized debate) helps grow the community.
Anywayz, as it is, most of the really rude flames get modded down, but good comments don't get modded up or really have any way of sticking out among all of the one-liners, making Digg comments look like an amalgam of name-calling and flames - which is why I'm all for just plain ripping off /.'s karma system for moderating comments (not to mention threading them so we can stop doing @whoever) - give passersby the illusion that intelligent conversation takes place here.
As far as the site goes, I really doubt much will change - this is just formalization of what's already going on - dupes and spam stories already get reported, a good number of flames already get modded down (though not enough, of course), and trolls already disappear relatively quickly from the userbase. And if I'm wrong and this site goes to ***** with Digg KGB removing every hack from the queue that potentially violates an EULA and modding down every comment that says "*****" a few times, then I guess I'm jumping ship with everybody else. What was that Digg ripoff site called? - Drood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As it grows more popular, it goes from being an anarchic collective right the way down a road that makes it a much lesser version of Slashdot.
Rose goes Corporate... - pillfred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hope there is a follow up on this, to clear up some of the mass confusion. As far as user profiles go i doubt if you don't have a website or msn,etc.account you'll get the boots, if so that would be very bad indeed. Seems like legal ***** to cover there ass.
- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0" "Because many geeks are cheap bastards who would rather rip something than pay for it."
I swear the first day we can bittorrent matter I'm getting a damn Escalade."
I swear the first day we can bittorrent matter I'm getting a clone of Jessica Alba. :-p - gwjc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Shouldn't: "...If any provision of the Terms of Use is found to be unenforceable or invalid, that provision shall be limited or eliminated to the minimum extent necessary so that the Terms of Use shall otherwise remain in full force and effect and enforceable"
be: "...shall be eliminatede or limited to the minimum extent..." - gwjc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0y2048: "...So in order to subscribe to the RSS feed you now need written permission?"
Dude - it says right there in the line before your quote: "With the exception of accessing RSS feeds, you will not use any robot..." -
Show 51 - 100 of 161 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is