What is Digg?231 Comments
- manchld, on 11/12/2007, -22/+261I think this link is of definite relevance. I wonder what score the editors would get.
http://forevergeek.com/news/digg_corrupted_editors_playground_not_userdriven_website.php
please read it before burying me. - DrAegoon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42Wouldn't someone who is deceptive and manipulative answer the same way as someone who is honest and trusting?
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38manchld
That's really interesting, I'll add it to digg's wikipedia entry when I have more time. If they ban you, I'll make sure to mention that too ;) - theprez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30@manchld
If what's said in the link is true, be prepared to say goodbye to your digg account.
I think digg users deserve a response or comment from "the editors" to that accusation, though. It's something I wouldn't like to believe. - 3lite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28@j0keR: ah, I see... So censoring the Internet in China is also not a problem, because Chinese authorities "saw the articles as attacks against them personally, and took what they thought an appropriate action". Well, I don't know, but banning sites just because they are critical of a system doesn't seem natural to me. But maybe that's just me.
cheerz - lukes, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28people who are posting their scores: we don't care, we don't know you
- botros, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22@j0ker
First, Kevin Rose is one of the people that dugg the article. Second, banning people who create articles saying other digger were abusing the website is kind of weird. If they're innocent why are they scared to share the incident with the public? (hope they don't ban my account again) - botros, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21@electrichead
You don't understand? Both articles were dugg by the same users in the same order and including Kevin Rose.
Now when we report this, we get banned. How user-driven is that? - captaindan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Most of the posted scores are high. Thus it should come as no surprise that some researchers think there's a connection between a high Mach score and narcissistic personality disorder.
;-) - twinmatrix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16I gotta 66 so I wont stab you in the back...unless I need to.
- harr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16"I got a 79 and I'm not evil at all. I think this "test" is definitely worded wrong and scored wrong. If someone had a terminal illness with no family or reason to live and they wanted to be painlessly killed I see nothing wrong with this. If you want to stop someone from preventing their pain THAT makes you selfish and evil."
That's because it's not really a test of how evil you are, the title is misleading. It's a test of how much you agree with Machiavelli's ideas. The term Machiavellian has come to mean evil in common usage, but that doesn't mean that all his ideas are evil (personally I agree with a lot of the ideas in The Prince but can definitely see where the "evil" image comes from - though I've only read some of it so I may have not read the more evil bits), you could agree with all his less "evil" ideas and disagree with all his more "evil" (so you wouldn't actually be evil) and still get a high score in the test because you agree with many of his ideas.
Of course some people may believe all his ideas are evil. They are definitely cold and calculated instead of nice. - umrgregg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14The thing is, these stories had no votes, and then got the magical 22 KR all in the same order. Only after they made it to the front page, did they receive all the additional Diggs. I always suspected that digg bombing would be too easy to Grease or script; browse some stories that were live before the new comment system, there are a bunch that have all comments at -x or y (sripted auto-digging?). Now we see that a couple of front page stories have the exact same sequence of initial diggers... It just seems that the system is being played and the powers that be don't want us to know about it or discuss it.
- Chakz, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22I got a 79 and I'm not evil at all. I think this "test" is definitely worded wrong and scored wrong. If someone had a terminal illness with no family or reason to live and they wanted to be painlessly killed I see nothing wrong with this. If you want to stop someone from preventing their pain THAT makes you selfish and evil.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Someone really needs to bring this to the attention of the editors over at Slashdot, I'm sure they would have a field day with this.
- Unr3a1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12I got Microsoft Evil. Who knows, maybe I am Bill Gates.
- j0keR, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18I believe what is said in the article is true, but I don't believe Digg is really completely in control of the edititors; but rather at the mercy of them. The speed-digging of the two stories mentioned could probably be due to the friends feature of Digg, which is not abuse in any way really. The editors can't be blamed for banning forevergeek either, because if you look, both of those sites are outright accusing of editor manipulation. The editors saw the articles as attacks against them personally, and took what they thought an appropriate action.
- Choaderboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13@manchild This is a very worrying situation - Digg's integrity is at stake here. It should be bought to the attention of the general digg population, the question is: How?
- priegog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Oh, come on, you're 13 years old. You couldn't fool anyone if you posted on a semi-anonymous community where no-one could see or hear you.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12I got a perfect score, but for some reason it kept addressing me as Mr. Vice President.
What's up with that? - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18and even if we did, we dont give a *****.
- iczman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9haha you got a good point.
ppl who are deceptive mark answers opposite of their true responses and appear to be good. - SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Machiavelli's The Prince is some of the scariest nonfiction reading I've ever done. It made me see politics in a whole new light. He advocates the ability to murder children, betray your own soldiers and committ all kinds of descpicable deeds and then to be able to turn around and appear to be holy and good. It's pretty twisted but all too real. I think it's one of the first political books that tells the way things are, not the way things should be and it's damned frightening.
- Solol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Not really : the Mach will only lie if there is an advantage to be gained. So i'd expect them to answer honestly, but report whatever score they think most appropriate :p
- SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I read a sociological study once that used a game to test people's deceptiveness and willingness to cheat. They found that around 20% of people will almost always cheat, even if there is no advantage to it. 20% will always be honest, even if there is no advantage to it. And around 60% will follow whatever they perceive the cheaters or non-cheaters are doing. So if the non-cheaters are more influential, they won't cheat either but if the cheaters seem to be winning, they'll switch sides to the cheaters. It would seem that a fifth of the population is good, a fifth is evil and the rest are just followers who swtich sides at their convenience. It's really interesting stuff. I've read the study and it was also mentioned in Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point, which is also interesting reading.
- SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@sbutcher it's a power thing. Some people who feel powerless or rejected from the normal social structure believe that they can gain more power for themselves by taking on evil traits or by appearing evil (it does work sometimes, but more often they only isolate themselves further). That's why you get pseudo-satanists, fake nihilists, kids playing at anarchy etc adopting the image of evil. It's about intimidation and power, that's really all there is to it.
- Toshibi, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17You know, they invented this thing called fun...and this is a social site....so sharing what you scored on a test could be a fun, social thing to do. Pull the stick from your butt and lighten up.
- ScionX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I was wondering how topics with no comments & like 2-3 digs got onto the front page.
I dunno, maybe I just don't understand how it gets decided what ones make it to front page. I always thought it was how many digs it got. - priegog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Why are people here honestly being proud of getting a high score? Not that I give any credit to the test, tho.... And anyways, Isn't posting your "evil proving high score" like, exactly the opposite of being cold, manipulative, machiavellic? I smell a lot of wishful test-answering here. Also I totally disagree with the author's interpretation of his own test's scores: How can "True low Machs, however, can be kind of dependent, submissive and socially inept."?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Can't believe http://digg.com/technology/Digg_Corrupted wasn't removed yet.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6..says.. this guy: http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/16652.JPG
- SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's what the fascists said in Italy. That's what the communists said in China and Russia. All right before they put 50 million people to death in order to build a better world. Which then promptly collapsed around them.
- ab500, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6No, it's 4/20.... (google it)
- phoenixd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@electrichead: So 16 people saw and dugg it in the same order? Come on you can't be that gullible...
- SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I would argue that a person who acts solely for their own benefit is exactly the definition of evil. A person who is good acts solely for the benefit of others. Most people are somewhere in the middle acting both for their own good and for the good of others. I don't think there is anything of value that is lost when one serves others altruistically, but everyone loses when people only serve themselves because it leads to mistrust, backstabbing and instability in social, economic and political structures.
- SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If you don't know who Machiavelli is, just go read The Prince. It's available for free on the internet, it's short and good reading. It gives real incite into the minds and methods of those in power. It's valuable information for everyone. You won't need this test to determine if you're evil or not after reading the book it's based off of. If you find yourself agreeing with Machiavelli's statements and planning on how to apply his concepts, you're evil. If you're disturbed by what he says, you're good. It's really that simple, that's all this test is. Good or evil, everyone should read it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5High Mach.
I'd describe myself as an educated idealist. I'd like things to be one way, but you can't get build a house without cutting down trees and tearing up grass.
"Remember, we're building a better world." **skewer** "This is a good death." - liquidjill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yup. People shouldn't really be surprised this happens eventually with any on-line community. Power is intoxicating, this is one of the many, many reasons I left Fark.
I'm sad to see how quickly it happened here yet don't fool yourselves, if you created a website of this magnitude one day you too would turn into a Drew or Kevin, it is inevitable.
Google mudwhimping for an example of this kind of a problem in a game environment. - ophello, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Success is a personal yardstick that isnt defined by material wealth. You will never know the length or final outcome of your manpulative practices. Honesty IS the best policy, though it certainly isnt the EASIEST.
Knowingly manipulating someone for your purposes cannot be considered moral. You may not be evil, but you may unwitingly commit evil acts. You dont need to decieve anyone to be successful in life. That idea is a complete fallacy. - po6ot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Well, well, well, so this week diggers are wannabe-dictators.
To think that only a few weeks ago you were all a bunch of autistic, savant, geniuses.
Things have come to a sorry pass. - zyntax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6For those of you, like me, who doesn't know who Machiavelli is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolo_Machiavelli - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Wow, as if avoiding stupidass internet personality quizzes everywhere else at all times of the day wasn't bad enough, it somehow turns up on Digg, a tech news site.
Must be a full moon.. - alky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Could these be more vague?
"Honesty is the best policy in all cases."
Are we talking about "Oh no I broke a vase, do I tell mom?" or "Hitler is asking us if we're attacking on such and such date, what should we tell him?"
If I give the right answer, which is "obviously not, we shouldn't tell people who will use the information to do a lot more evil" it'll be taken the wrong way! - iczman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Mmm I got the lowest score thusfar: 41
You are a low Mach, you reject Machiavelli's opinions.
I was happy until I read this: True low Machs, however, can be kind of dependent, submissive and socially inept.
Ha.
Cool survey btw. - JAFFA, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I got 41 !!!!
........ Excuse me while i go out and hug some trees........ - xaxa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Your Machiavelli score is: 37"
You're all more evil that me (and probably proud of it).
(Agreeing with euthanasia makes you more evil for some reason. The minimum appears to be 20.) - mochaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+355 right smack in the middle.
But I won't rush to judge any one and by the way don't trivialize yourself based on this survey. Human consciousness is so much more complex. These are generic questions and lack context our responses are likely to change based on relationships and circumstances. - davidleeroth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100
Your Machiavelli score is: 52
You are a low Mach, you reject Machiavelli's opinions.
Most people fall somewhere in the middle, but there's a significant minority at either extreme. - SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@harr Machiavelli's book is quite truthful in its telling of how some people choose to lead. However, it advocates some things that are extremely unethical, such as murder, betrayal and even at one point insists that a powerful prince (leader) can't even be human, he must be an animal who kills ruthlessly and then adopts the appearance of a human so that the people will still believe him to be a human and not rebel against him. You can see Machiavellians principles at play in Hitler's rise to power, in the current Bush administration, in nearly all dictatorships, facist governments and communist societies. That is not to say that there are not good people within those governments, but the heads of such governments often employ Machiavelli's ideas to the detriment of every around them, often themselves included. Machiavellianism leads to unstable governments built on fear and cruelty, which never last long and benefit no one.
- ophello, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What frightens/saddens me is that some of you are actually proud of your 60-plus scores. 75, 85, 95? You will all die from stress-related diseases.
- ophello, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Not a believer in hell, but...by that logic, if you stopped believing air, you would suffocate.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 228 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 