What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Tips to be first in line without camping out in the cold! view!
newegg.com - The Pre-Black Friday Sale. No Lines, No Crowds; Click and Save in the comfort of your own home.
283 Comments
- RAAFStupot, on 11/09/2009, -3/+546Dear World,
On behalf of Australia, I apologise for Rupert Murdoch. - L0NER, on 11/09/2009, -1/+335Good, the less people who see that stuff, the better.
- spworm, on 11/09/2009, -2/+281Murdoch is old and will probably die within a decade. He's planning to take his media empire with him.
He has no clue how the internet works, remember he bought myspace at it's peak. - apothekari, on 11/09/2009, -0/+248I can see it now...
Fox search, Fair and Balanced, We return the results you decide! - MacroDaemon, on 11/09/2009, -0/+229Why is there a gigantic scarred face covering half the screen?
- gankige, on 11/09/2009, -2/+208How does this make any kind of sense?
- fleischkopf, on 11/09/2009, -4/+185I was going to comment, but I've suddenly been overcome by the urge to play Dragon Age: Origins, which I believe is in stores now.
EA Games. Challenge Everything™. - prompel, on 11/09/2009, -0/+139I see no problem with this at all. It's not like there's a lack of free information outside of Murdoch's empire. Close the gates! Charge ridiculous prices! Lose your readers! Good riddance!
- jaytek13, on 11/09/2009, -5/+126It's fun to sit back and watch the destruction and unraveling of Fox News because of greed (at least it's Internet presence). Just another extension of the Republican policy I guess.
- ssttuu, on 11/09/2009, -1/+102I personally welcome the removal of New Crop. Goodbye!!!
- mikes1, on 11/09/2009, -2/+100Dear Rupert,
You're no longer relevant.
The World. - KeseChartier, on 11/09/2009, -1/+89Great idea. Now if only he would remove his sites from any search whatsoever.
- directedition, on 11/09/2009, -0/+87Make Fox stuff harder to find? Sounds great to me.
- SupplySideJebus, on 11/09/2009, -1/+86Thanks?
- dsmx, on 11/09/2009, -11/+92Not good enough, I say we destroy Australia to make sure this never happens again.
- Stevosaurous, on 11/09/2009, -1/+78Rupert Murdoch should just Change the background of all his websites to a giant picture of dragon age! that way everyone will be happy to pay for his site....
- Eaststand, on 11/09/2009, -0/+73I dont think Mr Murdoch quite understands how the internet works:
1: Type in search
2: Click on first matching result.
3: If first matching result wants money, go back to list and find another result that doesnt.
Removing your sites from the only search engine that matters will end up with one result: No hits on your website. And its a bit wierd he thinks Google is getting a free ride on the back of his endeavours, its quite the opposite really. I imagine Google have helped his business immeasurably if he reseached the matter. - fdsa1342, on 11/09/2009, -2/+69To annoy you.
- JKAL, on 11/09/2009, -0/+66No need to apologise,
I think he is doing the world a favour, this action will reduce the amount people finding the crap his news outlets spew to the world.
I say let him do it. - L0NER, on 11/09/2009, -1/+56How will they make all that 'Dragon Age' cash now?
- Adeeb911, on 11/09/2009, -3/+47Really Rupert Murdoch? Really?
- mattb5, on 11/09/2009, -2/+45I think Google should take the initiative here and pre-emptively block all of his sites from searches for a few weeks. Let him see how that will work.
- arkwald, on 11/09/2009, -0/+43The question is who reads things behind a pay wall? I mean would I go out of my way to see what some one wrote on the WSJ? Or any of the other things that Murdoch owns? It seems to me that people who would go to those places as a primary source of information would already be paying for that content. For 99% of everyone else it just happens to be there, but if it weren't then other media would just as easily fill in. Even if most media companies engaged in that sort of search engine withdrawal, there is enough otherwise that would fill in the hole, even if we are left with commenting over the BBC and the McNeil News hour.
The fact is that without compelling content it is hard to make money short of advertising. Google makes a ***** of money because they offer everything, thus offering the widest net possible which they target down in relation to searches. So out of such a huge audience size how much gets routed to things that Murdoch owns? Do you believe if Murdoch takes his ball home to sob that it would do very much to Google's audience? It would seem that such a move would hurt no one but Murdoch himself as he would be removing himself from relevancy in the minds of most people. Cynically I think this is him trying to posture so he can make a deal. That he can throw up enough FUD to make Google scared he might actually pull out and deprive them of his content. However I think he is vastly overplaying his hand and showing just how much of a dinosaur he is. He's going away and in the end the world will be a better place. - mkw408, on 11/09/2009, -1/+43Most people who read news on the internet get their sources from multiple locations. I would like to think that they see through Rupert's Fox news. I don't trust any source of news that is produced by an affiliation of Murdoch. I doubt most people are going to pay for their news. I won't.
- DemDude, on 11/09/2009, -0/+40Dear World,
on behalf of Germany, I say yes, concentrate on Australia. Nothing to see here, move along. And he was from Austria, anyway. - Andrej73, on 11/09/2009, -1/+38THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
- reticulate, on 11/09/2009, -0/+36+2 from another Aussie.
Though, to be fair he's an American citizen now so he's your problem :P - Elranzer, on 11/09/2009, -0/+33Better.
- obreaslan, on 11/09/2009, -0/+33So when I search Google for something, I won't get any results from Fox News? I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Sounds like a win to me. lol!
- tobsterius, on 11/09/2009, -0/+32Wait... If we can't find it on a search engine, then it would be harder for us to look for the information that we have to potentially pay for...
- mbtria, on 11/09/2009, -0/+31Mr Murdoch has done a great service to the Web. By eliminating the indexing of some of his schlock, he has raised the quality of the average page on the net. For him to continue to raise mean Web standards, all he has to do is add a robots.txt line to each of his HTML pages.
- askantik, on 11/09/2009, -1/+31Why don't you look on the other side where it says:
"DRAGON AGE: ORIGINS
IN STORES NOW!!!!!!!
EA BIOWARE" - zoomaKabu, on 11/09/2009, -1/+30If I can't find it with Google, it doesn't exist. I even Google my own sites.
- eugenie, on 11/09/2009, -0/+29cannot comment. sorry. too busy playing dragon age:origins.
- opmike, on 11/09/2009, -0/+28That Dragon Age ad is way too ***** big. And that douche's head is bigger than mine in my screen.
- lennynumberone, on 11/09/2009, -1/+28Great idea! Better yet, Google should remove every instance, then charge him to come back on Google. The stupid, greedy, *****, ass.
- bingostud722, on 11/09/2009, -0/+27dunno why you got buried, I have the same overwhelming urge.
- MonkeyOverlord, on 11/09/2009, -0/+26Does this **surprise** anyone coming from the guy who thought MySpace, the demonic doppleganger-reincarnation of Geocities circa 1996, was worth something like $600M?
- geodescent, on 11/09/2009, -0/+26Good Riddance
- portnoy, on 11/09/2009, -0/+25Why is he stopping there? Maybe he could create an entirely separate system for distributing his web pages and get them off the public internet completely. And while he's at it an entirely new cable system so subscribers to the current cable systems can't access his programming, that would be a super idea too. And maybe special Fox Stores that would have exclusive access to his papers and magazines, what could be wrong with that? There's been talk of creating a .sex domain to confine porn from the general net, maybe a .dildo domain for Murdock properties is in order?
- conviv, on 11/09/2009, -1/+26I like my free news, and thank you "Rupret" for taking for taking your rubbish out, you are doing the world a favour by removing disinformation.
News Corp (Lex corp) vs Google (superman). Lame, I know but News Corp just sounds so ominous. - JQP123, on 11/09/2009, -1/+25Desperate people say some crazy stuff. And this is proof of Murdoch's desperation and denial.
Most likely, he's studied the situation carefully from every possible angle ... and it always comes back to the same logical conclusion ... which he clearly refuses to accept ... his media empire is doomed. - gunit99, on 11/09/2009, -0/+24I, for one, accept your apology. I've been to Australia and love it. Fantastic country. And I can sympathize, since we gave the world George W. Bush.
Regarding the topic: go for it Rupert, you gigantic *****. I don't want your ***** propaganda polluting my search results anyway. Oh, and by the way: good luck with that. - gingerboy, on 11/09/2009, -0/+23he said it right in the article "loyal readers of our publications"
So you basically want people to only get information from your publications, so you can control the general themes in the news for x amount of people?
Sorry Rupes, but teh internets mean we no longer have to buy one or two news papers in the morning and rely on them, we can browse through alternate opinion - cross reference stories - make our own minds up, thats the beauty of it - meaning we can see through your publications *****! - spworm, on 11/09/2009, -1/+23Its my special gift to the grammar nazi's.
- phoomp, on 11/09/2009, -0/+22I certainly won't be visiting Digg from work anymore. Which means I might not be visiting Digg anymore at all.
- michaelpinto, on 11/09/2009, -7/+27If you work in finance and HAVE to read the Wall Street Journal it makes plenty of sense...
- ScaryUK, on 11/09/2009, -0/+19Like so many before him - the record and film companies for example.... he just doesn't get the Internet.
He thinks that Google are stealing his news content when it's actually Google who are providing him with his readers. For his websites it's the equivalent of him withdrawing his newspapers from WH Smith (the biggest newsagent in the UK).
Going pay for his newspaper sites will probably fail as well, those who like one of his papers enough that they will pay will just buy one. their websites will whiter and die with no casual readers from the likes of Google or Digg reading them.
Mind you we've know this for a while, he was the person who bought MySpace after all - HairyPoter, on 11/09/2009, -0/+19this is called greed and today greed has no bounds. Douches like this are not satisfied with the amount of money they have. Not even all the money in the world is enough. It is like this douche here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjd_MKbHGRk
not enough to have a Ferrari. It has to be made of gold. And after one week the guy needs more.
And probably on the corner of the same street is someone searching for food in a garbage can. - cbeach, on 11/09/2009, -0/+18Anything that helps usher in collaborative, socially-regulated news sources like digg.com and Twitter is a positive thing.
Let "Old Media" commit suicide. It's good news for the rest of us. -
Show 51 - 100 of 283 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is