What is Digg?146 Comments
- matrox212, on 10/12/2007, -21/+54Thank you for pointing this out!
- Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30That will probably be the only time you see Michelle Malkin and Bloodjunkie in the same sentence.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+40Everyone go through the crap here:
http://digg.com/users/Outership/dugg/page1
and mark as spam. : ) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -23/+44What an attention-whoring *****
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27The great thing about blogs and the internet is that everyone can live in their own customized reality where their beliefs and opinions are correct, infallible and superior. You need never come across an alternative viewpoint unless you choose to. And why would you choose to be told you might be wrong?
These partisans (on both sides) don't see themselves as partisan. They see themselves as central, and everyone else, however moderate, as deluded extremists. At that point, it stops being laughable and becomes just plain scary. - aplusplus, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28No, it's not. It would be ironic if he hired a team of people to digg the article.
- Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -17/+33The only thing more laughable than partisan blogs are the ones who digg them.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16This is hardly surprising. The Digg head honchos seem very keen to encourage people to put "Digg This" buttons on any and every webpage. I've even seen them on the BBC News website.
Are they less welcome than any other newcomers? I don't see why they would be. There are people using Digg for self-promotion purposes all the time. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23This appears to be a conspiracy by the evil-doers.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24Yeah, but bloodjunkie doesn't write his articles.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -21/+32"Get ready for the thoughtful, intelligent, comments! Get ready to be tolerant of other peoples' viewpoints! Oh, wait, she's a conservative? Nevermind..."
She offers nothing thoughtful, nothing intelligent (except in her skillful appeals to pathos) and nothing tolerant of the views of others. So why should we extend her courtesies she won't extend to others? Do you normally greet pitbull terriers by trying to cuddle them? - graiz, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20In general this is a problem with the Digg model. If you have a network of 50 people you can get your article pushed to the home-page and get thousands of visitors on your site.
Perhaps digg needs some basic trust system to grow your trust over time.
Forget click-fraud... what about digg-fraud? ;) - ccheath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11sites want to have digg this buttons so that their stories can have a chance at higher visibility if the story gets homepaged to digg.
- gronne, on 10/12/2007, -15/+25Glad I'm not the only one who noticed this.
- diggerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10actually - I'm not.
Just because I disagree with an opinion, doesn't mean I must digg-down.
Several "liberal" diggers get modded-up by me, based on content; or down, based on profanity.
A wise general said once - "Cursing by officers is occaisionally necessary to make a point. Profanity is not."
Or something to that effect. So - do I go around "spamming" articles because a certain person submitted them? Or because they linked to a specific URL that I don't think accurate? Nope. If I think it necessary to comment, I do the research, visit the site submitted, and formulate an opinion.
Go ahead - mod me down. - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19Her site is like The Onion, right?
- mellowsoon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14I believe there is a slight "trust system" built into Digg's algorithm. At least in the sense that a digg from a long time member will hold more weight than a digg from someone who just signed up yesterday. Even more so when the long time member has had many of their own submitted stories hit the front page.
I could be wrong... - NikhilPK, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13From Wikipedia:
"...I would take the comparison to Ann Coulter as somewhat of a compliment. I have a lot of respect for Ann Coulter." - Michelle Malkin
Anyone who takes being compared to Ann Coulter as a compliment is ***** up. - dhakbar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Digg has a lot of issues to resolve, that's for sure. I hope the site design keeps up with the people trying to game the system for their own gain.
- 0x0000ff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10what a mole!!
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005652.htm
"Awwwww. Looks like someone is upset that readers of this blog vote for their favorite posts using the Digg button at the bottom of each entry, which I incorporated last month. Occasionally, a post here gets promoted onto the Digg front page (the more positive votes, the higher an article/post rises). And a few left-wingers can't stand it" - canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -16/+23i don't really care if she posts her garbage here, it is suppossed to be an open forum after all. i just wish they would stop with THE ALL CAPS TITLES.
it really is annoying though, it's like the yahoo stock boards and interns that show up posting crap like - HOT TIP, BUY XXXX NOW!!!! - fretless, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15Never heard of 'Dig' until I saw it on Michelle's site. When she first mentioned it -- i dunno, a month or so ago i guess -- i sorta blew it off, because ... well ... it seemed sort of pointless.
But, this thread is amusing.
Here is an opportunity for all sides of the political spectrum to openly discuss there differences, and possibly discover their similarities. But there seems to be less interest in doing that from the people who profess there own 'tolerance'. Perhaps, deep down at some unconscious level, some of these people understand that their own closely held belief's just don't hold up under scrutiny.
Oh, and the idea that the political left has a greater presence on the Internet than the political right is just plain silly. - apzdsx, on 10/12/2007, -18/+25Aside from michellemalkin.com:
http://digg.com/search?s=michellemalkin.com
They're also used hotair.com:
http://digg.com/search?s=hotair
Hotair.com seems to be Michelle Malkin's video blog. I suggest everyone mark the submissions as spam. - diggerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@bio
Thanks. I'm one of the statistics listed in the referenced submission (joined 20 JUL)
@nation
Congratulations. If 'Kevin' (sorry - don't know him well enough to use anyone's name here without quotations) isn't doing this for money, I'm sure it's a welcome "added benefit".
In general, I've submitted stories from LGF and MM's site. They were:
1. an editorial cartoon
2. couple different BLOG entries
3. an explanation of an article written in German (with source URL in description)
My experience has been:
If it's from either of these sites, it's likely to get a few diggs - maybe even a few comments... but likely won't get referenced to the front page (although one did).
From the very start, it has ~seemed~ quite partisan; my very first comment proclaimed me a "GOON" who was propagating "LGF Spam". Way to go, thanks for the encouragement (Aidenag). But it prompted an open discussion between me and a fellow Washingtonian (he's in Seattle) with an exchange of thoughts - which is what ~I~ perceived the intent of DIGG to be all along.
So, if that's the way it is, great. Hope to seeya' in the blogosphere sometime. - Cypheros, on 10/12/2007, -16/+22I find it strange that when people from the right side of the spectrum post things here, and have their stories dugg up, then they are "media whores"...but when someone from the left end of the spectrum posts something, its "important content".....does that seem right to you?
Bioshocker has a point--partisans don't see themselves as partisan--Including those who are strongly partisaned toward the left. Just because you aren't conservative doesn't mean you are exempt from being partisaned. Most of the comments here prove that. - hackershandbook, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7but it isn't SPAM is it ..... they might be political opinions that you disagree with ... but SPAM they are not ...
when SPAM become "anything I disagree with" then everything is SPAM grrrrr
if it was ads for bigc*cks, bigt*ts, viagra, victorias secrets etc - that is SPAM
alternative opinions are NOT SPAM - and no wishing in the world will make it so - except a group of elitist fascist little-hitler diggers who are doing the equivalent of a book burning rally by marking everything from a small group as SPAM
free speech LOL out really f***ing loud - anyone who promotes this kind of censorship does not deserve free speech - they wouldn't know what to do with it and don't have "anything to SAY either (we will note - that beyond marking articles as SPAM there is no constructive dialogue, no debate of the facts no reference to the content of the article.
This is DIGG CENSORSHIP
I don't want a censored dig - I want all the view points I can get - but then I'm bright enough to debate the issues rather than punching the SPAM button all the time
Angry? You bet I am - MSM media already distorrt the world enough without diggers joing in with some secret ultra-cliquey more-politically-correct than thou attitude.
My advise - go to TAILRANK instead - it might be a bit more balanced than this cesspit of censorship - tmvander, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Discussions like this lead me to believe that sites like digg will end up being segregated into left.digg.com and right.digg.com. All Michelle has done is add a "Digg This" link to her blog and people have been using it. It is no different than any other site out there that has done the same. The only difference is that politics are involved and when it comes to politics, diggers scream foul-play when they some across something they don't agree with. If you don't agree with the viewpoint, either ignore the digg, or write something about your point of view. Don't scream foul-play simply because someone else might be voicing their opinion.
- brutalentropy, on 10/12/2007, -17/+22I am not surprised. I am sure they are going through and marking all the "liberal" articles as inaccurate or spam also.
***** scumbags... - axxiom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It appears Mr. Heyward doesn't have a problem with digging items. He has a problem with the items that are being dugg. Perhaps if the items were more tempered to his personal opinions he would withold objection, but because of the nature of the content of the dugg items it appears to have laced Mr. Heyward into a dizzy.
He may need an adult, or perhaps a guide to the Internets. - Nation, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7In this thread I am not saying the way it should be ... I am stating it the way it is.
I don't disagree with you, jbus, on a fundamental level and I don't like the political crap on digg. I have shared my thoughts on what needs to be done (at least in some regards) to fix digg here: http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Some_Suggestions_for_Digg_3_1
I do disagree with one small part "That really takes the democracy out of digg and turns it into ad space that is given to the highest bidders." Digg has always been a popularity contest, or a democracy, the only thing that is changing is the user base of Digg ... and that is what the ownership (the people who make money off this) wanted. - WesternWisdom, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10It never fails to amaze me how the liberals are all for freedom of speech and freedom of press until the viewpoint contradicts their own, then the libs are all screaming foul and complaining that there isn't more censorship.
- tHePeOPle, on 10/12/2007, -29/+34Huh.. I'd never heard of this media whore till just now. I can't wait to not digg her inevitable next article submission. What a bunch of crap.
- eridius, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Of course, if you have a large-enough network to push stories to the front page, you can quickly build a small group of users with a high ratio of submitted stories to popular stories, which then gives a boost to their digging power, making it easier to shove more stories to the front...
It's a vicious cycle. - Nation, on 10/12/2007, -4/+91. it's been happening since day 1
2. have you not listened to KR? This is what he wants to happen ... that is why he is releasing a really great API and all ... where "sites can integrate digg into their site" just as this site has done.
3. The only reason a big deal is being made of this is a conservative is the one who integrated it into their political site (as opposed to the tech/apple/liberal/bbc) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Digg is not composed of supporters of only one side of the political spectrum.
From what I've seen, both Left-Wing agenda and Right-Wing agenda has been pushed. - dmh11686, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10This is everybody's place. When you say "OUR" place, what do you mean? Who is included in that OUR? Just liberals or everyone?
- dan2, on 10/12/2007, -22/+26Yes, the Right-wing propaganda machine is at work. LGF is also in the mix.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+19Some of those statistics look random. One could probably find a bunch of people who have signed up within the last 2 weeks who primarily digg bloodjunkie articles.
- reevolutn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12who is this person?
- Nation, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8the longer I follow digg the more I question if this little "experiment" will really "work" in the long run. I am sure it will make money, that is not my question, my question is more of will the goals and objectives Kevin really wanted work (unless his real primary goal is to make money).
- Cameleopard, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11I've been burying those articles as spam too. I don't usually bury stories I disagree with on a political level, but it's clear that this is a concerted spamming effort. Furthermore, she's not exactly offering cogent thoughts; it's usually hyperbole treading (very) close to hate speech. If unmitigated hatred = conservatism, then I guess I'm guilty of being intolerant toward intolerance.
- jbus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@ Nation
Politics aside... What good is digg if companies and bloggers start hiring or recruiting supporters to submit ALL of their stories to digg and promote them to the front page? That really takes the democracy out of digg and turns it into ad space that is given to the highest bidders. - Couchy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9quoted by jbus:
"Politics aside... What good is digg if companies and bloggers start hiring or recruiting supporters to submit ALL of their stories to digg and promote them to the front page? That really takes the democracy out of digg and turns it into ad space that is given to the highest bidders."
Thats the problem - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -21/+25Isn't it funny... here you are, complaining about censorship, and then blatantly plotting your own censorship scheme! This is hilariously ironic!
- darthmdh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10I'm not sure how this is news. All sorts of interest groups have been doing the exact same thing on digg for a long time. What we bet on is that there's a roughly equal quota of all the interest groups so things roughly balance out in the end; it just gets a little frustrating when you're on digg at the time when some particular interest group you don't agree with has messed things up.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10No, actually, I think that there are many, many well-off people online, who can afford computers and gadets and internet connections, who are happy in their comfortable little lives, and who think they are better than everyone else and therefore feel guilty. They feel the need to compensate for their elitism by subscribing to and supporting "liberal" ideas that seem to solve some problems in the short term but in the long term are detrimental.
There are a LOT more of them online than there are of us "regular" folks. - jaikar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The way I do it:
1. Don't digg down what I don't like.
2. Digg down anything which is spreading propaganda, inaccuracies, hatred, stereotyping etc...
3. Don't digg down/up a comment I am responding to. That's for others to judge.
4. Block people who defend governments without questioning thinking that's a patriotic thing to do. In addition to sophists.
5. I digg up everything I see as politically balanced. I don't like taking sides in politics besides the ones in the middle. - jrrich, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11You seem to think we are trespassers. We are not. Get over it.
@afghanwiggle
Exploiting a loophole in the editing process to get items you don't like isn't 'an editor's job'. Except maybe if you work at the Times. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13@eridius:
Do you seriously believe that what we call "liberals" are ACTUALLY open-minded? Are you seriously suggesting that? Because I have NEVER met a liberal who was open-minded, especially on the topics of abortion, war, welfare, taxes, economics, racism, or even, in some cases, killing animals to eat their meat, amongst other topics!
Don't try to say that liberals are open-minded until they say that it's OK to be pro-life and to believe that abortion is murdering an innocent life, that it's OK to believe that war is necessary sometimes, that it's OK to believe that the welfare state does not work, that it's OK to believe that taxes are theft, that it's OK to believe that free trade should be a basic human right, that it's OK to believe that people shouldn't be defined or treated any differently than each other because of their race, that it's OK to believe that eating meat is just fine and a natural part of being human... When they say all that, without saying "you can believe all that, but if you believe that then you're a moron" THEN and ONLY THEN will I believe that a liberal is open-minded.
When a liberal can TRULY say "Well, your opinion is just as valid as mine, and we can agree to respect each others' opinion and to respect each other, and you're not stupid, and I'm not stupid, we just happen to disagree... Let's leave it at that," THEN I will believe that they are open-minded. - diggerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@couchy
you really think the news represents an honest "no bias" view of anything? Please... -
Show 51 - 100 of 144 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is