What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
189 Comments
- Digitalfilm43, on 10/10/2007, -10/+94Misinformation? Here? On Digg? No Way! That may be true for those "other" social media sites, but if it's on Digg then it has to be true!
- Bukowsky, on 10/10/2007, -22/+88And, for the record.... I HATE Rush Limbaugh, but I found this article very interesting and decided to post it.
- whatthefu, on 10/10/2007, -9/+67Digg is a breeding ground for sensationalist, jumping-to-conclusions stories. It's not the individual's fault; it probably has to do with the whole group mentality. But people are REALLY quick to judge here.
- ninephoenixes, on 10/10/2007, -2/+56Why is there even a question mark in that title? It's an irrefutable fact that ***** of misinformation passes through digg's main page every day, and that an alarmingly high number of people will believe whatever's in the title and/or blurb without even reading TFA.
The information age is also the misinformation age, and I don't think humanity yet, as a whole, has adapted enough psychologically to cope with the fact that the internet can give ANYONE--be it a "common man" who doesn't know what he's talking about, or a less-common man with an agenda--a large platform where he or she will be believed if things are done the right way.
Misinformation is very dangerous. And the right isn't the only group who takes advantage of this... - FreakyD, on 10/10/2007, -14/+66A lot of digger hear what they WANT to hear.
- chriskzoo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+50Never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people.
- WraithTDK, on 10/10/2007, -1/+44I've said it before, and I'll say it again: NEVER trust a "controversial quote" from ANY media source, unless you can get a copy of the ENTIRE speech/article/debate/etc. I've seen this time and time again from both Dems and Repubs. I remember a while back there listening to a live broadcast of a Senate debate that lasted AT LEAST an hour (I listened while driving to work and had to stop when I go there), and then later reading a Washington post article about it, which included all of five lines of actual dialogue, followed by "paraphrasing" and "summaries" of what was said, all of which was WAAAAAY off. It was hideously skewed, and it made me realize why it is that so many people seem so clueless in the world. They choose one side (liberal/Dem or conservative/Repub), find a newspaper/news show/website that seems to support that side, and then just completely rely on those sources to decide what is important, what they need to know, and then just spoon feed it to them. This gives theese sources a truly dangerous level of control over how these people think, because when you do this, you're handing over control of your mind and your opinions to people with a clear-cut agenda, instead of looking for the unbiased truth.
I realize that it's nearly impossible these day to find truly unbiased news. But there ARE things you can do to more reliably get the truth, and I think you owe it to both yourself and your fellow man to do so, at LEAST before you decide to get all angry and up-in-arms about something. And, as I said before, my biggest piece of advice is simply this: if something says "during an inteview [person X] said [quote Y], BEFORE you get all pissed off, schedule a protest, or spread the quote to digg/stumble/del, look around, and try to get the ENTIRE interview. The ENTIRE speech. Don't trust what you hear second-hand untill you can see it IN CONTEXT. - mooninite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+31Yes, thank you. Digg is getting out of control. Even if you have a valid counter argument you get modded down and get responses using "lol" in them. The maturity of this site is rather lacking.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -17/+46If it was misinformation about a popular liberal, Digg would be crying bloody murder for the next year. Double standards rock.
- prophet5, on 10/10/2007, -5/+34Why is this a surprise? Most digg policitcal postings are HIGHLY biased trash. Sites like MediaMatters, alternet, rawstory... these things shouldn't even been allowed on here. It's more propoganda than a speech at Columbia University from an Iranian diplomat.
- HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -7/+32Never let facts get in the way of a good e-argument.
- hcl40u, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23I think I have to agree. Most people here just read the headline and description then immediately post here based on what they've read. Even a brief read of the article appears to be rare amongst the diggers here.
- vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -8/+30You want a guaranteed way to make the digg front page, follow the rules:
- anything that mocks Bush, Cheney, Rush Limbaugh or Republicans
- include issues or companies that will destroy the world or country (Microsoft, big oil, AT&T, etc)
- include issues or companies that SAVE the world or country (Apple, iPhone, Linux, open source software, etc)
- bring up Ron Paul
- submit anything from MediaMatters, treehugger.com, etc
- anything related to how bad the Iraq war is going or how much it costs
- anything that brings up the impeachment of Bush or Cheney
- any article that CLARIFIES what "President" Ahmadinejad actually said and brings about "respect" of him - Jimm, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26you can hear the original clip here http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=h_top
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25Political parties make people stupid, because of the inherent prejudice, so it make sense they pass that stupidity onto social sites. It's any kind of prejudice but politics seems to be the biggest source. That's why politics on the Internet is generally ignored by people with brains.
- RonaldLewis, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19It doesn't matter -- The mainstream spreads misinformation ALL THE TIME.
- mbthompson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19Looks like you got dugg down, guess diggers can't handle the truth. You forgot to mention anything pro atheist and anti-Christian. The more militant, the better. Digg has become a cesspool of the worst kind of people.
- innergeek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15You forgot to use the sarcasm tags on your comment. Oh, that's right, HTML tags aren't allowed in comments.
It's gotten to the point that I ignore anything political on Digg, because there is so much garbage being propagated as Truth. - orelses, on 10/10/2007, -11/+24He WAS calling a FEW of the Soldiers Phony.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17No, he was calling this ONE person a phony. This person claimed to be a Ranger, he wasn't, a purple heart winner, he wasn't, an Iraq war vet, he wasn't. In FACT, he washed out of basic training! He was only in the military for less than 50 days!
- RCourtney, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16From what I remember reading about the Vietnam war and how so many Americans took their anger with the government out on the troops I can't help but feel like we're falling down that same slippery slope today with the war in Iraq. People with no real message using the troops as their scapegoats/poster boys to further their ideology at the expense of those same troops. Leave the troops out of it - they are simply doing what they are told and required by uniform military code to do. Many are proud to be there... many don't want to be there. Each American is due their own opinion but the troops are just doing their job. I hope we do not end up in the same place, with the same attitudes, as happened towards the end of Vietnam because the way we, the American people, treated our soldiers as a whole then is still a huge stain on our history that should never be repeated.
- dartmanx, on 10/10/2007, -10/+23Hardly... "neocons" (aka anyone who doesn't share your opinion)... are losing BADLY on social media sites such as digg. I don't think I've seen any articles praising the current president here (and any story dugg to the front page gets hijacked in the comments about Ron Paul).
- synarchy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Limbaugh has been complaining for months about the way the mainstream media will print just about anything, particularly claims of atrocities, from people claiming to be vets or active duty, without bothering to confirm the accuracy of the stories. And recently, thanks to the blog community, just like with the fake photos from the Lebanon war, the mainstream media is being called to account for printing *****. And Limbaugh has been doing what he does best: GLOATING about it, and talking about it and about how it proves what a genius he his for pointing it out. I've been listing to him gloat over it, and find it highly entertaining, since the only thing I can't stand more than the tool that is Limbaugh, is the tool that is the mainstream media. For anyone who's been listening to Limbaugh, you'd know the use of the term "phony soldiers" was a reference to the FACT that bloggers are revealing the ***** being crapped out by the mainstream media, and that he therefore has ONCE AGAIN been vindicated by as the media is exposed.
The knee-jerk lefties can scream bloody murder all they want, but it's a hollow cry. The only people that lie more than Republican tools are Liberal tools. - froalskiner, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15I thought he was talking about one soldier that only lasted 45 days from the time he signed up to the time he quit...Either way this was totally out of context.
- vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Digg is also a place controlled by a handful of people - if you actually do a statistical analysis of anti-Bush, anti-Republican stories that make it to the front page, you will notice that an overwhelming number of digs for all those stories come from the same group of users and/or a majority of similar usernames and individuals. Not a big surprise really.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Digg......the new home for the dailykos/democraticunderground/huffingtonpost.com users
- TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Digg is just as bad as any other form of media. The different being that some people here actually think their opinion matters.
- onebit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Is Mainstream Media Being Used to Spread Misinformation?
- vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Awww...what's the matter?? Is that how a liberal handles "dialogue?"
- geolittle, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16I haven't been on Digg for a while, but since Demoniod's been down I've looked out of boredom. What I've found on the front pages are some of the biggest piles of bull I've ever seen. Where do these stories come from? The National Enquirer would pay big bucks for this crap. What's worse is that these same stories are repeated again and again. I think whoever picks these stories must have ADD or something. I can't wait for Demonoid to get back online so I can get back to sanity. Give me sex, drugs or rock n roll; Tech if nothing else but enough of this political fiction.
- geolittle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Digg has done one thing right. I found I was able to delete all the political crap except for the mislabeled stuff. What gets me is that there doesn't seem to be much left after you delete the propaganda from the list.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11But you don't understand..........Liberals "ALWAYS" tell the truth.......you mean you didn't know that? LOL.
- kingygk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Media Matters and Moveon.org are George Soros funded democrat smear groups. They go after conservative talk show hosts and take them out of context.
- TantrooM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Irony, telling a soldier if he hates the troops to leave the country, because the one yelling at him hates the opinion of a troop.
God Bless our troops, but Lord have mercy on our hypocritical politcians. - redstatepride, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11How is this relevant to his comments about phony soldiers?
- ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -19/+26If you want to look at misinformation, consider the many counter-posts that are getting seriously dugg using Rush Limbaugh's EDITED transcript as corroboration. I submitted an article that MediaMatters.org wrote proving that Rush Limbaugh was lying about what he said, including the actual audio from his broadcast and his edited transcript. I did this last night. Now, an article posted 25 minutes ago is on the front page questioning the accuracy of the original MediaMatters.org article and the proof of what Limbaugh actually said is nowhere to be seen.
- nplace1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Dude, I disagree with the vast majority of Digg commenters (troofers, people who think the police state is imminent, and MediaMatters/Raw Story/Keith Olbermann fanboys) say, but I read every day just so I can get a big taste of what it is I disagree with.
- tracydanger, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Wow. This is not even close to the entire context. I was listening to Rush the day after this happened and he played the quote - in context - the portion for about 3 minutes AFTER using the term phony soldiers. He explained that he was talking specifically about a few instances where people claimed to be soldiers that never actually were. One guy in particular that never even made it out of bootcamp and then claimed to serve in Iraq and see a bunch of atrocities. That is who he was calling Phony Soldiers. The person that posted this portion of the transcript shows the exact bias that the article talked about.
- vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6There is a famous quote from an author used in Romania in reference to Communists coming to power in 1940s:
"Stupid...but many!" - Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Yep I heard it first hand, I don't know how you could say he didn't call Soldiers opposed to the war phony solders.
- Castronaut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It's rare to see an even-handed intelligent post like this one.
- TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11Like your silent 's'?
- ChaoticCheez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7DUH...Don't believe everything you read? This isn't news unless you're like five years old and believe everything anyone says.
- vvaduva, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Oh yes...any articles containing the word "Dawkins" will make it to the front page as well...
- TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Yes and that made huge chunks of sense.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5What are you .......like 12?
- pdrap, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8You're misunderstanding what the guy wrote. He said that the full transcript shows that Rush words were as bad as his critics say they are.
The hypothesis of the website was that Rush wasn't so bad, he was taken out of context. As the poster of the full context said, the full context proves that website wrong. - WikiEasy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5aka. Digg users.
- Grym11, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Using the term "political parties" implies a certain intellectual aspect to this phenomenon. There is none. It is pure and basic TRIBALISM.
It's only funny because--in theory--we *should* be above this. Here we all are communicating through a highly technological, sophisticated medium and what do we do? We use it to fling ***** at eachother. - jnield, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The media, is our fourth check and balance in this country. We are a nation of the people. If the three branches of our government all lose their check on each other, and all become to powerful, the media's responsibility is to give us the information we need to keep our elected leaders in check. That is why it is so important for independent and unbiased news reporting. If the government leaders in power (liberal or conservative) are allowed to influence the media, they are then influencing popular opinion in whatever ways the special interest groups dictate to the media. Without media, Americans will live in ignorance. With biased media, we will live not just in ignorance, but in blind support of liberal agendas. yes. liberal.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 189 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is