digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Digg Life: How Social Media Will Change the World

lifehack.org — With a very simple concept, Digg.com has changed the fundamental nature of the news media and how millions of people access information. Digg (and its fellow social media sites) democratized the media...Now, argue about whether this is good or bad, but it’s now a fact of life.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • artistcw, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Good article
    • fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14Digg didn't democratise (spealing?) the media. It created the tool to do so, the rest is up to the people who are proving remarkably adept at censoring unpopular opinions.
    • simmersiz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18I'm new to Digg, but I just wanted to say that I am truely impressed with both the quality of articles on Digg and the online community that supports it. Not only am I impressed with the quantity of articles, but the quality of them and the comments about them.
      I think this really might be the wave of the future and expect other traditional forms of media to, at least attempt to, be much more user interactive.
    • Dregga, on 10/12/2007, -9/+52"With a very simple concept, Digg.com has changed the fundamental nature of the news media and how millions of people access information."

      Oh what a bunch of self-aggrandizing crap. Look at the articles on the front page right now. Reactionary *****, video games, TV and movies, and bite-sized trivia.

      Less "changing the world" and more "changing the way you ***** around at work".
    • JonnyCash, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18"Oh what a bunch of self-aggrandizing crap. Look at the articles on the front page right now. Reactionary *****, video games, TV and movies, and bite-sized trivia."

      I agree in theory with the article, but you're right, Digg's demographic would have to get a lot broader for it to truly replace mainstream media, and by then, we'd end up with the same information as mainstream media presents now. Guess we're damned either way.
    • grazie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Dregga:

      The media is a lot of different things to a lot of different people. It profoundly changes and effects people's lives, whether they use it to read about video games, politics, movies or celebrities, the media is a large part of the world around us. So changing the way people interact with it - is in effect changing their world.

      The article is talking about the concept of democratization that is at the heart of what happens at Digg, and how it may be applied in other facets of life. I don't think anyone can argue with that. The internet has given people greater choice, and therefore greater power over their world. At its core, money is made on the internet - or anywhere - by appealing to groups. The more people that can be appealed to, the more money to be made. So giving the consumer control over what they want to see is an attractive way of maximising profit potential, and so it will continue to be employed. Within reason.

      I can't see it catching on quite to the extent that the writer of this blog seems to think it will. There is too much at stake and too much fear around the idea of giving control to the masses. But it will play an ever increasing role in a number of areas where money can be made. Instead of manufacturing desire, the desire will be the driving force behind the products of the digital age. And this will be measured by sites like Digg.
    • smhill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30@Dregga
      ..."changing the way you ***** around at work".

      Beautiful! That should be Digg's tag line.
    • fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Applying digg's democratization to real life ...
      http://www.kidsenabled.com/articles/images/boy_w_hands_over_ears.jpg
    • birkoph, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7Digg.com isn't a news site, It's a humor and fun facts site. If anything sites like digg will make people more retarded.

      Look at the front page of digg. There's NOTHING news worthy there except for 1 or 2 articles.

      You want REAL news try www.thestar.com and http://www.theglobeandmail.com OR something local.

      90% of digg is CRAP.

      Digg.com - For kids by kids.
    • injury0314, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"I'm new to Digg, but I just wanted to say that I am truely impressed with both the quality of articles on Digg..."

      Are we talking about the same Digg?
    • Bamborzled, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@injury0314

      Lay off simmersiz. He's still new here. He doesn't know yet...
      Getting serious now,
      simmersiz:

      Just stay here for a month. Then you will see Apple fanboys, Microsoft fanboys, Flag564, and random 12-year-olds posting "09 F9...". Enjoy your stay while you're still naive ;)
    • johnnyb3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Now if we could only figure out how to keep the grassroots campaigners for Ron Paul from controlling our main page stories...
    • smartass007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what will happen when the 'concept' really gains traction and mainstream popularity? business and political interests (people with money) will flood and game the system to their advantage and will drown out independent thought.

      as the 'code' incident revealed, flooding and gaming digg ain't that hard....
    • PURPLEDRINK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well it's a step up, allowed by technology... The press freed the serfs after all. The easier it is for the common person to access media the better. The oldest form of broad cast were messengers of kings/noble men-- obviously very controlled information, each year civilization just becomes more civilized, yet not perfect or anything ideal which some might be stating.
    • jono10, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2IM IN UR CMPUTRZ LIBERAZING UR TUBES

      In Soviet Russia, Democracy censures you!!
  • nicolaihel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Creating the tool to do so led to it being done. I think Digg deserves a lot of credit, as do other social media sites.

    As for people censoring unpopular opinions, you'll always get that in any public forum. The trick is to figure out a way to get those opinions heard.
  • whoaohh, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10digg is slowly bringing democracy and rights back to america
    • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9Holy crap...the dumbest thing ever posted on the internet. EVER!
    • checkmate987, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2or not
  • bcasper1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Digg is really an outlet which after long enough time (and harassment on our part) has gained the attention of major media outlets as not being a competitor for news but rather providing a voice for a younger generation. From the mouthpiece of digg we create news by reacting to the stories of the world. The media recognizes the mass opinions of the youth by observing our moves on Digg and the havoc we sometimes create. This is no democracy as long as moderators have the power to censor us and limit our abilities to free thought and opinion. This is also not a democracy because we make no law, policy or decisions here. Rather with our powers combined, Captain Planet...I mean we create a large enough bleep on the map to gain the attention of big media and along with that carry the subject matter to the forefront of public attention. Digg is good and we should never allow this mouthpiece here to ever be compromised.
    • smithpg1002, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I have to agree with earlier posts. While, yes, you the user, get to vote on stories, when the vast majority of the articles that make the front page are stories about how cool Ubuntu or Mac are and How a Lightsaber works, you kind of lose credibility as a democratic "news" source or the "voice" of the younger generation.

      While I agree the concept is a wonderful change to the stifling control slashdot has had on decent tech stories, until the news that is submitted and made popular changes, and the temper tantrums over some stupid numbers and calling it freedom of speech stop, this will always be considered a geek techie site by the rest of the world.
  • n8dawg87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Intelligent discussion on the age of social media and its more negative affects by Jaron Lanier (Virtual Reality pioneer and scholar):

    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html

    Alot of other major news sources like the NYT have picked up the term "Digital Maosim", in reference to the social media age, based on this article.
  • one2gamble, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Give the people a venue, a global reach and they will naturally use the tools given to them.

    The best part of digg is a flow of information that encourages debate.
    • OutOfMyBase16, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@mikecampbell - well isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? the majority gets it way? whether you agree or not, if 70% of the population here doesn't like something, it will get buried. the people have spoken.
    • avasol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Case in point: Have you seen the moderation system here? Anyone who disagrees with vox populi is quickly buried into the abyss of censorship."

      It takes 32 muscles to smile but only 2 to extend your finger and digg somebody down.

      Oh and another similie suitable to this. Diamonds are created under immense pressure for a long time.


    • one2gamble, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@mike

      sure looks like a debate to me
    • BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"""isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work?"""


      Yep, democracy is not without its weaknesses - most specifically with regard to anything intellectual or specialised. This is the price we pay.

      Imagine surgery where every person's ideas on what to do next are equal, even though only one of them is a surgeon.

      The same issues do affect debate and topical conversation on Digg, and always have.

      Example:

      20 people pass an insightful post explaining use of trampolines in a program - of the ten who digg:

      4 can't be bothered to read the long post and digg down
      2 think the "trampoline" talk is nonsense because they're non-techies who've never heard the phrase, and digg down
      1 thinks it's not sufficiently praiseworthy of their chosen operating system/gpu/cpu/political party/company and diggs down

      ...and the others are techies and digg up the good post. the net effect is still an informative comment getting buried.

      This is just how it is on Digg, and as you say it's the inherent price of egalitarianism in comments. It's the price we pay for a fun and interesting take on article aggregation.
  • sdipaola, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0come on let's be serious. half of digg stories are about the next dumb game and some weird picture. digg is cool and all. so are 200+ other sites doing democracy right.. So are 2000+ other orgs. I'm glad digg is part of a positive change. but lets not be full of ourselves.
    sd
  • ouais, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1none of this will pan out because of one word money.
  • pcore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Now if only digg could become more world wide! Wouldn't superbowl tv commercials own?
  • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The entire decription is inaccurate. Digg has not changed anything to 99.999% of the population. And never will.

    Seriously morons...when will your delusions stop. Go ask 10000 people on the street about Digg and 9999 will have NEVER HEARD OF IT.
    • pcore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You may be right but "Rome wasn't built in one day".

      You act as if it could never happen. Not sure how likely it is but I believe Digg will be even more popular in the future.

      The fact is a grand majority of people still rather be ignorant than to actually come to sites such as this one.
    • gbacci, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If everyone knew about Digg, you'd see crap about Paris Hilton at the top of the headlines every day. There will always be a need for someone to filter the news and determine what is important, whether it's an editor behind a desk, or a well-informed group of "diggers".
  • televisible, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Democracy or Mass Dictatorship???? There are thousand stories that had never been read on dig.
    • redlemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4submit them. mass dictatorship? i see what you're getting at but thats not how that word works.
  • Lennalf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I like the article, but some of the predictions at the end are too outlandish IMO. While social websites have created some very awesome alternatives to the mainstream, it is unlikely that they will become the mainstream. Maybe in a nerd utopia, but not in a world where the average person is too stupid to even question traditional media.
    • redlemon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i think the point is that these sites aren't mainstream. look at all the gaming and ads we have NOW! mainstream ***** eventually gets watered down to one thing, moneygrabs.
  • rationalthinker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Sorry... but I think the article is a little full of itself and it wreaks of someone writing a piece that is begging to get dugg for the authors promotion. I have to give it to him... the title begs a click... but the only thing I took away from this is an overly exaggerated importance of digg and it's users.

    The flow of information was fairly efficient before Digg and will remain so long after it's gone. Digg is really nothing more than one more method for all those wanna be adsense millionaires to spam they're sites.

    There is an occasional nugget of information... but only after weeding through a lot of crap..
    • Lennalf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@rationalthinker (#6609518)
      I would agree that the article is written with an obvious pro-Digg bias, but rather than being a brown-nosing ploy to attract Adsense revenue as you suggest, perhaps it's because the author actually likes Digg. And perhaps other web authors do what they do because they feel it is worth doing, and Adsense is just a way to keep the servers running.

      To say that the flow of information is efficient in mainstream media is a hilarious joke. Pick up a Time or a Newsweek and actually force yourself to read it; I cannot be held responsibly for any vomiting or self-inflicted eye-gouging that may occur as a result.

      Give the little guys more credit, and don't give the big guys so much.
  • xmuzik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The thing I like most about Digg is that you can go and get tons of news,articles,blogs, and crazy stuff all in 1 easy to use site without having to subscribe to a RSS feed or install any software. Not to mention you can comment immediately which sometimes is a blessing and sometimes is a curse depending on that threads comments crowd :)
  • proofm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Everyone has an opinion.
  • kh99, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@mikecampbell

    How is my question "ad hominem"? I didn't look at your comments, but I'm assuming you're so used to being attacked that you assume every response is an attack. I was seriously trying to understand your comment. I actually agree with most of what you said, at least as far as I know having only joined a few days ago.

    But I think you're comment about wanting to see digg die is rationalizing your enjoyment of annoying people. That's not what a normal person does, BTW.
    • kh99, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Sorry, I'm an idiot - still learning how this works.
    • kh99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"What a brilliant way to state the digg-mindset."

      What an obvious way to avoid addressing the actual meaning of my statement. You generated a pretty big smokescreen there.
    • kh99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1My original comment was trying to understand why you spend time on this site if you find nothing intelligent - I find that interesting. You answered - you're a troll and you enjoy it. I have to admit that I find it amusing to see that some people responded to you even after that comment.

      I'm not attacking you, just trying to dicuss why you're doing what you're doing here. But it's interesting that *you* find someone labeling you "not normal" as an attack, that seems to go against the point you were trying to make.

      Thanks for taking the time to respond.
    • BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"""Your questions are ad hominem because instead of discussing the real premise of my statement (that popularity is a poor measure of quality), you instead attacked by labeling me inharmonious and not "normal"."""


      That's how life works. You posted a pretty crappy comment about how other people's comments are bad. Expect to have that pointed out in the replies

      That's something like bursting into a theatre dressing room and shouting "Everyone here looks camp! Haha!" - whilst wearing a pink tutu, sparkly bodice and leopard-print stilleto shoes.
  • ronshubby, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Oh really? Digg and all other social media sites have been in steep traffic decline since late 2006. According to Alexa, Digg's reach has decreased 40% since November.

    Site formats come and go. Remember when it was hotornot? Or before that, online auctions? I don't know about you but when I'm on Ebay, I always just click "Buy It Now".
    • redlemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5rule # 4568948
      if you're going to use "facts" like that, include a link to where others can read these "facts". all social media sites?

      and i'm glad you click buy it now, because that means i can get what i want cheaper and there are less people sniping my bids.
  • truu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1How is digg unique to the other blog and news sites on our net?
  • dacman61, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I think Digg is cool overall but allows retards to post articles too many ridiculous websites that promote conspiracy theories and other typical anti-Bush websites. Sometimes the crap gets old. I'm sick of bomb thrower websites no matter if they are from the far left or far right, but in my own honest, middle of the road opinion I see way more extreme left wing crack pipe "take things out of context" type of websites.

    I think that all ethics and common sense to traditional journalism has been thrown out the window in the past 10 years, and it's very upsetting. I suppose it's from the creation of the 24 hour cable news stations, i.e. CNN, Fox News, and others, that have helped move along this sorry downtrend from competing against each other for ratings. Also I believe that any whack job can create a news website and spew any sort of lie and misleading truth on the internet and dumb retards out there eat it up like it's the factual truth.

    And one last thing.. I'm sick of it always being "the cool or hip thing" to bash the current administration for every little thing that happens in this freaking country. No I don't always agree with "W", but come on people, have a little respect for The President of the United States. If not for Bush then for the position itself.

    Just my 2 cents...
  • 404NF, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I'm really new to Digg.com, but I visit often. So far, Digg has brought me Ron Paul, Mike Gravel and stories about Iraq, such as their recent vote for troop withdrawl, which I would have otherwise missed. I feel many of Digg's stories are actually news and some stories are more news-worthy than most of what I see on broadcast news.

    Digg isn't just humour and pithy angst ridden teenagers who will never have objective rational logic. It's an experiment and like all true experiments, what will happen is not known. There's trash here, without a doubt, but there are also good stories and some really excellent comments. Digg's system seems to reward comments people find worthy and that's where Digg beats the pants off other "social news" sites. Digg is the only site where I actually read the comments from stories.

    Thanks people, you're doing a great job as far as I am concerned.
  • gafasiesornivek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Get over yourselves.
  • kjartan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I love Digg and all, but these praise stories are getting ridiculous. We all get it: Digg and all its social-bookmarking cousins are great. We don't need news stories telling us about it anymore.
    • redlemon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2hey man who doesnt like hearing about how great they are! this is AMERICA!
    • BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"""this is AMERICA!"""

      I'm very happy for you if that's America. This isn't. xD
    • naughtyboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1neither is this :P
  • markmayhew, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2digg is cool, Kevin has taken it as far as he can take it. It's now time (past time, actually), for him to sell it (so that the big boys can run it).
    • dacman61, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm afraid if the "big boys" end up running it, then stupid restrictions or ridiculous censorship may start to happen possibly.
  • eeedc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Obviously, any Digg audience is going to be biased to Digg, Wikipedia and other social networks, but for an opposite view check out the book:

    The Cult of the Amateur: How today's Internet is killing our culture

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385520808/howtoincreyoursa

    Book Description (from Amazon.com):
    Amateur hour has arrived, and the audience is running the show

    In a hard-hitting and provocative polemic, Silicon Valley insider and pundit Andrew Keen exposes the grave consequences of today’s new participatory Web 2.0 and reveals how it threatens our values, economy, and ultimately the very innovation and creativity that forms the fabric of American achievement.

    Our most valued cultural institutions, Keen warns—our professional newspapers, magazines, music, and movies—are being overtaken by an avalanche of amateur, user-generated free content. Advertising revenue is being siphoned off by free classified ads on sites like Craigslist; television networks are under attack from free user-generated programming on YouTube and the like; file-sharing and digital piracy have devastated the multibillion-dollar music business and threaten to undermine our movie industry. Worse, Keen claims, our “cut-and-paste” online culture—in which intellectual property is freely swapped, downloaded, remashed, and aggregated—threatens over 200 years of copyright protection and intellectual property rights, robbing artists, authors, journalists, musicians, editors, and producers of the fruits of their creative labors.

    In today’s self-broadcasting culture, where amateurism is celebrated and anyone with an opinion, however ill-informed, can publish a blog, post a video on YouTube, or change an entry on Wikipedia, the distinction between trained expert and uninformed amateur becomes dangerously blurred. When anonymous bloggers and videographers, unconstrained by professional standards or editorial filters, can alter the public debate and manipulate public opinion, truth becomes a commodity to be bought, sold, packaged, and reinvented.

    The very anonymity that the Web 2.0 offers calls into question the reliability of the information we receive and creates an environment in which sexual predators and identity thieves can roam free. While no Luddite—Keen pioneered several Internet startups himself—he urges us to consider the consequences of blindly supporting a culture that endorses plagiarism and piracy and that fundamentally weakens traditional media and creative institutions.

    Offering concrete solutions on how we can reign in the free-wheeling, narcissistic atmosphere that pervades the Web, THE CULT OF THE AMATEUR is a wake-up call to each and every one of us.
    • dacman61, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is exactly what I'm talking about! Looks like I found a new book to read.
    • flap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hmm will have to read this book before I make any true judgments. That being said I'm not really sure you can "destroy" culture. "Culture" is changing all the time.
    • ekso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1dacman: so you are an egocasting adept hun?
    • yaveznodo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The book is interesting in many parts. But he seems to be proposing the idea of an elite group of people who are allowed to create, produce, control and that nobody but this sanctioned group has any worth.

      As far as I see it, amateur hour is about the best thing to happen to the web. People are sharing their work, cross-pollinating with other creative endeavours, experimenting where in the mass media this would not be tolerated. In mass media creativity has a bottom line; money. Here, in the niche we've built for ourselves, creativity has a bottom line of popularity. The work can be popular without making a cent.

      The choice seems to be simple. Continue with the old ways, where our media is sanctioned by those in control of the money or create a new media where the control is in our hands and in the hands of those who view.

      NB - Of course I'm not stupid enough to imagine that money cannot be a part of this new media, but it can be ruled out as a primary motive in many cases.
  • glitchbit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Digg needs to go back and remove the friends feature, this has allowed too many stories to get dugg for no other reason than to get their agenda and news stories dugg interesting or not.

    I have posted completly original articles like many others and received hardly any diggs UNTIL someone with a network of friends duplicated my stories.
  • devincalloway, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"And who decides what’s hot? The masses."

    The masses do not decide, individuals and small controlling groups do. It applies to any area of life whether it's the web, politics, business, science, entertainment, etc.. The few that hold the power make the decisions, bottom line. The 2000 presidential elections verify this. Al Gore received the popular vote (masses) while George W. Bush received the electoral votes (controlling few). George W. Bush is now our President.

    Kevin Rose and his team make the final decisions here, that is a reality. Until, the day comes when they give digg users the login and password to their database and ftp, it will remain a democratic republic.

    Please, enough with the social media pole stroking. Too much hooplah hype, too fast is never too good....
  • flap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So uh...if everything becomes "digg like" and all traditional media is thrown out the window, where are the stories going to come from and what are we going to digg?
    • msqueak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Blogs. Scary isn't it?
    • naughtyboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1... dont forget corporate advertisement disguised as news articles.
  • bombshelter13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Am I the only one who finds some of the scenarios presented a little frightening?
  • suxmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lesson learned: yes, the world of the news has changed. If you kiss up to news source you get ranked highly on it! I love Digg I just wish more stories that bashed it made it to the top so I could trust it more :(
  • slapthemonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In order to stay up-to-date, the interactive sites continue to grow . Depends, how creative one is to make it more successful and different than the usual ones,
  • snoshues, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm entirely fed up with the down-spiraling of digg. Since the HD DVD hex code fiasco, digg has become a hotbed for ineffectual, incoherent and ultimately useless information. For days digg has been over-encumbered by Ron Paul stories, useless "BREAKING" 'stories' and above all else, utterly baffling comments. When i first joined digg, i was overwhelmed at the seemingly articulate and observant comments... now i find myself digging down each and every comment. Spelling and grammar mistakes abound, time wasted reading what i at first thought each digger would have thought of by themselves, and therefore was unnecessary to mention, things such as the over-abundance of '/sarcasm' and "you dumbass, you didn't catch the joke?" comments usually followed by equally unimpressive derogatory comments, most notably today a "that's what she said" comment being dugg UP?... Common sense seems to have disappeared, replaced by an over-anxious and immature community, bent on the destruction of the US government and our self-image as a species on a completely impulsive and ultimately uninformed basis. the Internet is the most amazing thing we as a species have ever encountered, in my humble opinion... it provides each and every lucky user a voice... but this shouldn't be used to spout incoherent babble... the Internet is more a learning tool.. educate yourself, then participate when you have something truly original and constructive to add... i can't describe how much i wish for my view of the 'average joe' to be changed by digg, by it's democratic and boundless nature... but within the last month I've lost all faith in 95% of the digg community. Is this the end result of a powerful social experiment? has digg been destroyed by its exposure to the masses?
  • Informativo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The emergence of the social web warrants a rethinking of the way our government is organized. What if we elected the Internet to congress?
  • swearitagain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hi,I'm new to digg~
    It is undeniable that the world is changing,but i afraid that information will be overabundant.
  • Zebceponaf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Communism FTW!!!

    just kidding.
    Great article, I was thinking (and not writing) all of this yesterday when the whole Ron Paul thing came up.
  • nico623, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"thats just the way it is......things will never be the same"

    i think sting said it best...
  • neoamerican, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Good theory, warrants consideration. My fear is that it could have the same problem as communism, opposed by human nature.
  • AvidMasturbator, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I agree with smith. As long as there's too many nerds here, there's always going to be a lot of pointless articles about Starwars, computer mods, etc. That just lowers the quality of the site as a news source.
    • BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1| sed -e "s/too many/enough/" -e "s/pointless/excellent/" -e "s/lowers/raises/"

      Agreed. There are too few nerds here.
  • sa9e, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Digg is very well designed and deservedly popular, but it's not evolving fast enough...I fear that with all the cloning going on, Digg itself is just carving a niche which suggests a Slashdot-lite/Fark-lite geek-circle-jerk pointlessness.

    The Dark Tipper needs to be innovative with the technology his company has (just about) perfected...the mix of tag semantics and groupcast ordering has wide-reaching possibilities...Users should be able to Digg anything - it could become synonymous with adding an abstract object to your public list of favorite whatevers, like Xerox is for copying.

    I'm not saying it's likely, I'm just saying that anyone can see the potential of Digg and since we like Kevin personally we hope he figures it out. But pretending that "social media" is even close to mature is very naive.
    • BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"""Users should be able to Digg anything - it could become synonymous with adding an abstract object to your public list of favorite whatevers, like Xerox is for copying."""

      I agree. "Dugg" is a piece of metadata we should be able to attach to almost anything, and share with other diggers from this site.
  • Lasthorseman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not likely. As usage does go up your ability to reach a potential "world" audience will diminish. You as an individual your opinions, thoughts and worldviews will be put into a sea of billions of others and therefore will carry little weight. They will figure a way to censor it, even if that means flooding the net bandwidth with cheap bread and circus videos.
  • slantyeyed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Democratize? It's more like anarchy and mob rule. And then there are the top poster cool kids who influence the mobs into digging what they want.
    • technoanarkst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1absolutely slantyeyed. Mob-rule is not democracy... and should not be confused with it. If you've actually used digg.com to any extend, and watched the "up and coming" section, you'd notice that stories with social impacts rarely hit the front page, while stories about how cool Apple's newest products are constantly hit the front page of digg. I think it's stretch to call "social media" the wave of the future. Most people have no idea what's good for them, and these sites end up dividing the masses even more. IMO, there is currently a civil war raging in the english speaking nations of the world, and these sites are the battlegrounds. They add fuel to the fire by providing the battle ground for flame wars. If you wanted to say that "social media" has done anything, then it would be to induce deep divisions between people.
      That is a failure.
  • helinism, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg is effectively provincial in essence, not quite the world changing impact some seem to claim!
  • MrPlug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i say good, its the only place a get my news.
  • dixie28, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"In a hard-hitting and provocative polemic, Silicon Valley insider and pundit Andrew Keen exposes the grave consequences of today's new participatory Web 2.0 and reveals how it threatens our values, economy, and ultimately the very innovation and creativity that forms the fabric of American achievement. Our most valued cultural institutions, Keen warns; our professional newspapers, magazines, music, and movies; are being overtaken by an avalanche of amateur, user-generated free content. Advertising revenue is being siphoned off by free classified ads on sites like Craigslist; television networks are under attack from free user-generated programming on YouTube and the like; file-sharing and digital piracy have devastated the multibillion-dollar music business and threaten to undermine our movie industry."

    Wooo, sounds triffic that does! He makes it sound like the end of civilsation as we know it but it sounds like democracy to me. Love it. Like the old John Lee Hooker has it 'People sure act funny when they get a little money, don't ya know.' Funny too that as soon as folk gather together round a truly democratic idea the herd of independent minds starts bleating 'mob rule, mob rule.'
    ..........................................................................................................

    In the United States . . . recent public opinion polls have revealed that an actual majority of young people in their teens, the voters of tomorrow, have no faith in democratic insitutions, see no objection to the censorship of unpopular ideas, do not believe that government of the people by the people is possible, and would be perfectly content, if they can continue to live in the style to which the boom has accustomed them, to be ruled, from above, by an oligarchy of assorted experts. That so many of the well-fed young television watchers of today should be so completely indifferent to the idea of self-government, so blankly uninterested in freedom of thought and the right to dissent, is distressing, but not too surprising.

    'Free as a bird,' we say, and envy the winged creatures for their power of unrestricted movement in all the three dimensions. But, alas we forget the dodo. Any bird that has learned to grub up a good living without being compelled to use its wings will soon renounce the privilege of flight and remain forever grounded. Something analogous is true of human beings. If the bread is supplied regularly and copiously three times a day, many of them will be perfectly content to live by bread alone - or at least by bread and circuses alone . . .

    . . . 'For nothing' the Inquisitor insists, 'has ever been more insupportable for a man or a human society than freedom.' Nothing, except the absence of freedom; for when things go badly, and the rations are reduced and the slave drivers step up their demands, the grounded dodos will clamour again for their wings - only to renounce them, yet once more ,when times grow better and the the dodo-farmers become more lenient and generous. The young people who now think so poorly of democracy may grow up to become fighters for freedom. The cry of 'Give me television and hamburgers, but don't bother me with the responsibilites of liberty,' may give place, under altered circumstances, to the cry of 'Give me Liberty or give me death.'

    Aldous Huxly, Brave New World Revisited, 1974.
  • mauiloa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As one who has worked for real change in this country for the past 35 years, I've never witnessed a more revolutionary tool than Digg.com.

    Since the demise of The Fairness Doctrine 20 years ago, public media has become controlled by an ever-decreasing number of large corporations, which by and large are run by politically-conservative and profit-motivated boards of directors. When network news divisions were subsumed by their sister entertainment divisions, journalism became a secondary focus. Ratings became the primary one.

    As a direct result of the end of The Fairness Doctrine, AM radio became home to every right-wing mouth in the land, and never had to balance outrageous utterances with opposing ideas. AM Radio soon became Hate Radio and remains so today.

    But real journalism never died. It just didn't have a voice that could be heard.

    With news sites like Digg.com and others, the need for all of us to have access to multiple sources of information has been fulfilled. The only editors on these sites are us, the readers. We create the content based on what interests us the most. And what these sites are proving is that for most intelligent people, true interests go far beyond the consumerist, corporate and celebrity-drenched culture that defines mainstream media.

    Perhaps most importantly, however, is that every day at Digg.com young people are exposed to ideas and views that aren't being taught in school or being featured in the mainstream media, so that along with all the cool things that make 21st Century America exciting, real issues of war and peace, love and hate and the future of the our world are at least being given a fair chance to be heard.
  • People2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There are many good things about Digg.com, but it's not democratic to bury all the littlegreenfootballs.com stories.
  • Cornstar23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How community-based popularity websites affect
    the news and content delivered to the masses
    Introduction
    Purpose
    The purpose of this report is to fulfill the Research Report requirements for CS 415, Winter 2007.

    Problem
    Recently, many websites have been created that take user input to determine the content of the site. Websites such as Digg, Slashdot, Fark, and del.icio.us are composed primarily of links to other sites submitted by their users. For example, Digg works by allowing users to submit a link to a video, article, or podcast, which then gets placed in a queue of upcoming stories. If a submitted link gets popular enough, it gets promoted to the front page. The fairly new phenomenon of community-based popularity websites could potentially have an impact on how news and content is received by the masses considering its rising popularity and widespread use. Digg, for instance, has quickly become one of the top 20 sites in the United States and is beginning to show its influences throughout the Web (alexa.com, 2007).

    Scope
    This research report will describe and analyze the most significant effects community-based popularity websites have on how news and Web content are received by the majority of Web users. This report will not go into depth about underlying details of the algorithms used by the community-based popularity websites because these details are not made public, are not relevant to CS 415, and only a high-level understanding is needed to recognize their impact.

    Background
    Theory
    The social implications of community-based popularity websites will be far reaching because they use a model that is substantially different than the traditional news model of mainstream media. Traditional media, when discussed in this paper, refers to a few individuals’ of an organization having control over what content gets focus within their published media. In contrast, community-based popularity websites depend on many individuals who are not associated with any single organization to choose the website’s content that receives focus. Although these delivery methods are strikingly different, they are not independent of each other. For example, Digg relies on linking to content produced from traditional media while traditional news sites are creating local links to “digg” their articles, hoping to gain exposure to their site.

    Discussion
    In this section, the report will discuss key consequences and implications regarding the emergence of community-based popularity websites. The topics for discussion are as follows: communities choosing news; manipulation of community-based websites; honorable objectives from communities; and profiting from user databases.

    Communities choosing news
    The majority of the initial users that subscribed to Digg were primarily technically-savvy computer users, which could be seen by the first categories offered by Digg: apple, deals, design, gaming, hardware, links, linux/unix, mods, movies, music, robots, science, security, software, and technology (wikipedia.org, 2007).

    Within the past year, Digg has expanded its news categories and now includes Technology, Science, World and Business, Sports, Entertainment, and Gaming as major categories. The digg-style promotion scheme is reaching even broader demographics now that it is being used by more mainstream and established companies like Microsoft and Yahoo (franticindustries.com, 2007). Despite the seemingly widening appeal of these promotion schemes, there is still the question of whether content is chosen democratically.
    The article “10 Steps to Guarantee You Make the Digg Front Page” discusses some of the common components of successful Digg submissions (seoblackhat.com, 2006). For example, an article speaking positively about Apple and Firefox will likely get promoted to the front page. Submitted articles regarding Firefox have reached the front page once a day on average for the past year, and articles with Apple in the title have reached the front page 1,225 times within the last year (seoblackhat.com, 2006). From another perspective, stories speaking negatively about Walmart, George Bush, Fox News, and Microsoft have shown to be very successful (seoblackhat.com, 2006).
    The article points out that a few specific topics receive extra attention on Digg, which may suggest that the Digg community has a slanted view. Although many websites have users who share common interests and views, Digg users actually determine the news and content that will be seen and heard by anyone viewing Digg. This may be significant considering it is receiving more traffic than newyorktimes.com, one of the most popular news sites in the United States (alexaholic.com, 2007).

    An issue that is brought forth is whether sites like Digg are much different than sites where a few editors choose the site’s content. Over the years, Digg has shown a biased view towards several topics, which would indicate that it is acting more like an individual than a variety of individuals. Further, Digg is not open-source, so the magnitude of influence of its developers cannot be entirely known. The best defense Digg has combating these criticisms is showing content that reflects a diverse population and providing transparency to its community. Proving that its content reflects a diverse population may be difficult, but Digg is continuing to expand its categories to be more representative. Two subcategories recently introduced were US Elections 2008 under World & Business and Microsoft under Technology (digg.com, 2007). To maintain a certain level of transparency, Digg maintains a blog written by the staff and developers that keeps the community informed of changes within the site.
    It may be impossible to determine whether any bias from community-based popularity websites lead to an unbalanced exposure of news and Web content, but recently an explosion of entirely new content has been released because of these websites. The Time’s person of the year for 2006 was “you,” referring to the wide range of individuals, not associated with traditional media, making an impact on the masses through the Web (Grossman, 2006). The success of the content produced by these individuals has been completely dependant on community-based popularity algorithms. The most popular video of all time on YouTube, “Evolution of Dance,” has received more than 42 million views as a result of YouTube giving more exposure to the more popular videos (youtube.com, 2007). Another popular video shows a boy videotaping himself playing a rendition of Canon in D on guitar, and it has generated over 15 million views. Although these videos were only for entertainment, they show that the potential exists to reach audiences in the millions through community-based popularity sites using just home equipment.

    Manipulation of community-based websites
    Since community-based websites depend on users to determine content, questions have arisen regarding whether users can manipulate these websites to their advantage. A popular article making it on Digg in July 2006 discovered some interesting statistics regarding top users. The data showed that the top 20 users contributed to 21% of the front-page stories and the top 100 users contributed to 56%. Over one million registered users exist currently, which means only a minute number of users submit the front-page stories. Considering all stories submitted, the top users are close to 100 times more likely to have a story reach the front page (seomoz.org, 2006).
    Although the top users seem to have a disproportionate influence on Digg, they still depend on around 50 or more unique users to get their submissions to the front page. Also, only a name appearing in small text and a small icon identify the submitter.

    Top users do have an advantage, though, in that when they submit an article, their likely large network of friends will be immediately alerted. They also have the upper hand because their articles benefit from Digg’s promoting algorithm, which takes into account the user’s submission history (blog.digg.com, 2007).
    Kevin Rose, founder of Digg, made the following statement referring to his site’s promotion scheme, “The factors and the algorithm are constantly being tweaked to reflect the diversity of the Digg audience as well as to guard against manipulative behavior.” (blog.digg.com). Spammers have already made attempts to create fake accounts to get stories to the front page, although most fail because of protections built into the promoting algorithm and the community that spots spam. What remains to be seen is spammers attempting to reach top users to get specific stories on Digg as a way to reach the 9 million unique monthly viewers (alexa.com, 2007).
    Netscape, revamping its site, decided to offer some of the top users on Digg, Delicious, Flickr, MySpace, and Reddit $1000 a month to submit stories to the new Netscape site (calacanis.com, 2006). These users are being paid for legitimate reasons, but this act brings forth another issue concerning the value of user accounts belonging to community-based popularity websites. In response, Digg has removed its list of top users, but the list can still be compiled using available data from Digg’s site (efinke.com, 2007). Now, top users and spammers both have the motivation of money to influence community-based popularity sites, which is a problem these sites may have to always defend against.

    Honorable objectives from communities
    Online communities are forming in large numbers and are showing their impact in a variety of ways. Digg, with its substantial number of users, has brought attention to many stories and issues of importance. The following are story titles that have each received thousands of votes to raise awareness: Digg Up Please- 13 year old Missouri boy vanishes - Just Aired 20 min ago, Digg this and help this man get treatment for advanced lung cancer, Please Digg: Man Comes Home To Find House Demolished by City, and YOU can help stop the RIAA (digg.com, 2007). There is no evidence showing the complete effect Digg has made regarding these stories, but popular stories like these get tens of thousands of views from unique users, which can have indirect effects.
    Many front-page articles involve major world issues ranging from network neutrality and widespread illegal downloading of music to global warming and human rights. The impact that Digg and other social websites have is questionable because these issues already have substantial coverage in traditional media, and it is likely that Digg is raising awareness to topics relating to technology more than any other. Search results using keywords “RIAA” and “global warming” suggests that within the last year, 18% more front-page stories involve the legal issues regarding online music than stories involving global warming (digg.com, 2007).
    Part of the social influence of community-based news sites could be as outlets for ‘whistle blowers’. One of the most successful stories submitted in Digg’s history was one involving a customer receiving bad service from an online camera store named PriceRitePhoto. After receiving bad service from this store, Thomas Hawk said he was going to write an article about his experience. The representative speaking to Hawk made several threats, but he still wrote and published his article online (Hawk, 2005). The story became the most popular submission to Digg at the time, and a few users made aggressive actions toward PriceRitePhoto. Some of the actions include: linking the story to other social websites, writing negative posts to the Better Business Bureau, overwhelming the PriceRitePhoto 800-number phone line with automated internet phone attacks, and even launching DOS attacks to store website (aviransplace.com, 2005). The consequences for the company were devastating, as it got delisted from all the major shopping comparison sites and had to take down its website.
    The events taking place regarding the online camera store article revealed the powerful capabilities of community-based popularity sites. Digg not only had the ability to raise awareness to the initial blog written by Hawk, but also had the ability to get directly involved with the story. Although the intention of the Digg community may have been a good one, many legal issues exist regarding its actions. The question remains whether group efforts by these communities will always have positive results considering the community could possibly be acting on false pretenses, acting carelessly, or acting to dangerous extremes.

    Profiting from user databases
    Community-based popularity websites have always depended on the ability to provide a free service to reach the necessary critical mass of users. However, the cost of maintaining a site receiving a large amount of traffic can become very expensive; some estimate that YouTube spends $1 million a month in bandwidth costs (Frommer, 2006). The obvious move to keep a site free is to produce revenue through advertisements, but few of these sites have shown that they can produce a profit.
    Similarly to Google being able to profit from advertising based on Web searches, Digg and other sites may be able to capitalize on their extensive user account databases. The potential for profit exists because users of community-based websites leave an abundance of evidence indicating their interests just by participating in these sites. For example, Digg keeps track of the user’s stories, videos, and podcasts that they dugg, submitted, or posted comments to. Potentially, Digg could internally tag each story, video, and podcast with keywords pertaining to the subject matter of the content. Data mining techniques could then be used to extrapolate information regarding the most effective advertisements for each individual user. When users log into Digg, they would be shown custom advertisements that were designed specifically to them.
    Whether Digg is going to sell its user database information to a third party is yet to be determined, as this obviously involves trust and privacy issues for the Digg users. In an interview taken in September of 2006, Kevin Rose said that his company would indeed not sell user data, and that they used a “100% ad-based model.” (blog.digg.com, 2007) Unfortunately, he has also claimed that they are not yet making profits. So far, Digg’s 18 employees have been relying on the company’s venture capital, which has now totaled over $10 million (Marshall, 2006). Although Rose seems resistant to selling user data, Digg may have to resort to an alternative business model that incorporates its extensive user database if it wants to make a profit. YouTube, bought from Google for an astounding $1.65 billion, is another community-based website which may need to take similar actions if it plans on making profit.
    Conclusion
    Summary
    In the past, all news and content that received the focus in any given website was chosen by a few editors from that website. Now, many websites utilize the masses to determine the content that gets the focus in their site. Although this a subtle change, the consequences and implications maybe great. For one, home-made content is commonly viewed by millions of people solely because of these community-based popularity sites. Many other implications involve problems of these sites trying to be completely democratic. For instance, signs exist of community-based popularity sites containing strong communities with unified interests and opinions, which has the potential to affect what the masses see and hear. Also, it seems evident that community-based popularity sites will always have to defend against spammers and small groups of individuals with a disproportionate amount of influence.
    The communities formed have definitely attempted to use the power of their numbers in influential ways. Many stories involving a need of awareness have been given great exposure due to these communities. Also, ‘whistle blowers’ can now easily access the large number of people necessary to expose foul play of higher establishments.
    Finally, users of community-based popularity websites may unknowingly be giving up some of their privacy by participating in these websites. Since basic advertising may not lead to profits, these sites may be forced sell their user database information to third parties as a way to stay in existence.
  • dietprozac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Politics: A Digg.gov site will allow the masses to decide on issues, rather than having politicians do it for us."

    Excellent. So instead of lobbyists bribing politicians, they will start buying our diggs.

    Cletus: "Yew mean you'll give me $5 if I push a little button on the internets? I don't gots to do no readin' or nutin'? Hooo-weee! HEY KIDS! WE EATIN DINNER TONIGHT!
  • pastdigger009, on 12/01/2007, -0/+0You guys see how supposedly former Digg members are leaving Digg - which is nonsense. That site Mixx is getting hype but I don't see it at all.
    http://digg.com/tech_news/Senator_Bentsen_to_Mixx_ ...

    I accidentally undug it.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.