Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Steve Mallette's Response To The "Digg Controversy"
steve.tawkr.com — "Yesterday an unfortunate incident occurred on Digg where a patently false accusation was made against me. Due to its inflammatory nature it was voted “thumbs-up” evidently without much investigation by many digg readers."
Gregd- 1374 diggs
- digg it
- Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not interested in continuing to fan the flames of discontent, but I thought it only fair that someone post Steve's response to this.....
- jobeats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0nice response, shows a lot of class
- super_structure, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Through a mediator I’m told that Kevin Rose is now aware of the real story and believes nothing wrong was done on my part."
I have not reason to doubt Mr. Mallette and if Kevin Rose is cool with it then the Digg community should be, too. - fnorre, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Didn't he spam a lot of stories from his site(s) as well? Was that also false?
- super_structure, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Mallete stated the following in a comment on an O'Reilly radar post concerning the original story here on Digg:
"One brief correction: There were no "automatic" submissions to Digg. If we had something we wanted to promote we submitted it, but there was no bots, or anything ridiculous like that."
I'd say someone (not automating) submitting a new Web2.0 service such as his sites doesn't constitute spam, even if people at Digg aren't interested. In opinion, stating this was spam is not true. - dECODED, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3who cares?
- Baddox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Not me.
- thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2me either.
- dhakbar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Who is Steve Mallette?
- wilcohol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Glad that there's no hard feeling between Steve and the Diggers.
- RiddickRom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Enough already with the promotion for this guy and his multiple cloned sites, reported as lame
- GutterBumber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Did i miss something?
- webwright, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You should care, if you were one of the thousand-odd people who Dugg the smear story about him yesterday. Like "real" journalists, I would wager that citizen-journalists (the Digg community in this case) tend to be less interested in participating in corrections/apologies for articles based on hasty/incorrect assumptions.
Dugg-- Because I get annoying that newspapers put their corrections and retractions on the goddamn 8th page. ;-) - retr0spectiv, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Wtf..... only the most die-hard digg fans would care about this.
Guess what... the people who come here for TECH NEWS and COOL LINKS don't want to read this crap.
THIS IS NOT TECH NEWS.
THIS IS NOT A KEWL LINK.
WTF IS THIS?
ITS CRAP, THATS WHAT IT IS. - syda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1im sorry, but that site is such a rip off, he needs to get his own ideas. no pligg... err digg.
- orabox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@gutterbumber
http://digg.com/links/Steve_Mallette_vs._Digg_controversy
And
http://digg.com/security/O_Reilly_writer_Steve_Mallett_has_stolen_digg_s_code - Animosity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1We need more drama on the front page.
- retr0spectiv, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1We should care? Man webwring you Should get a life. Away from the computer. Get off of it NOW! GET A LIFE! GET LAID!
How does that feel, smartass? Don't ever tell anyone else what they 'Should' think or care about. ***** authoritarians make me sick. Authoritarian geeks are even worse. All they can push around is their lil dinky or 3d characters in Quake... - Firepants, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I didn't dig the story this is referring to, and I'm not digging this one.
- danhuard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My take is this...Maybe this guy really isn't responsible for the 'stolen digg code.' The problem is that he's totally biting digg's look and feel with these petty clones. The 'digg engine' is pretty unique and has a lot of potential. But seriously, you can't find a new way to present it?
Fine, he's exonerated from guilt, but he's still part of the problem. - tazamore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4All the words in his repsonse were copied from the English dictionary. See for yourself. Look at this word form example: "inflammatory"... no look in the dictionary... it's spelled the same exact way! What a plagiarist! Ban him! Release the hounds!
- Laurent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We need to investigate. It's our duty as... journalist? But we aren't journalists.
- Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> Fine, he's exonerated from guilt, but he's still part of the problem.
Since when is it a problem to imitate a site? It happens all the time. Everywhere. In every field. All. the. TIME.
Music, art, ideologies, websites. The human race is not infinitely creative. There are only so many ways to present an interface. - ,,|,_, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Stolen code, is stolen code. Try to tell the police that you're sorry, you didn't know the car you were driving was stolen by someone else. See how far that'll get ya...
- thejavapro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yesterday this man was the anti-Christ because somebody "exposed" him as a thief. Did that person who said "Don't worry, I have proof" bother to contact Mr. Mallette to see if what he "uncovered" was correct. Hell no. It's much better news to throw something on-line and let the facts fall where they may, knowing very well that if they were incorrect, it would quickly be forgotten, but the front page DIGG THIEF story would linger on forever.
Everybody on this site should care very much about this. This calls into question the validity of every other story on this site. What is next, "I saw Elvis!!" on the front page?? Please check your facts before defiling some body's character. This is truly ridiculous. - Sophren, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Because of digg's instantaneous nature, mobs WILL happen..
But I think everyone's blowing it out of proportion--how could we have known about the Spanish company stealing the code instead? We wouldn't, and neither would Steve Mallette if the digg article was not posted.
And in the same time it took everyone to get riled up, now everyone knows the truth--thanks to the original digg article. - cannibal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2You guys need to calm down on attacking people. Why don't you complain about some thing Kevin Rose does?
http://damagedintransit.com/2006/01/10/geeks-are-jerks/ - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@retr0spectiv - I think you're the one that needs to get laid, and get some therapy if you think he was being an authoritarian. webwright was appealing to people's logic and lamenting a sad situation in journalism. If you can't see that then you're an idiot, and probably 15 years old.
- enfact, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0a la democracy
- danhuard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Since when is it a problem to imitate a site? It happens all the time. Everywhere. In every field. All. the. TIME."
Well, I think that's a weak point because music piracy happens all the time, for example. It doesn't mean music should be freely available because of that. All I see are 95% of the digg clones biting the digg look and feel. Also, a lot of these sites are just repurposing digg's content niche. It's one thing to bite the style but create your own niche, it's another it bite the style and just do the same thing b/c you that it works (and you see dollar signs). - tazamore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Copying bits of HTML and even CSS styles and perhaps a decorative image or two is not exactly "stealing code". It's unoriginal but not the crime of the century.
- redivider, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Wtf..... only the most die-hard digg fans would care about this.
Guess what... the people who come here for TECH NEWS and COOL LINKS don't want to read this crap."
I'm not a die-hard Digg fan.
I come here for tech news and cool links (among other things).
I found it interesting. I (along with a lot of other people here, I'm sure) were following the story. I think anything related to Digg (the site itself) is pretty much fair game whether its "tech" related or not. And just to play devil's advocate, you could certainly put this story in the "design" or "programming" categories, although its a bit of a stretch. I've seen much worse though.
What I don't want to read (we'll call it "crap" if you like) are all the 3-year-olds complaining about what should and shouldn't be submitted. The whole idea behind this site is that there are no limits. The users decide what is popular and what's not. There are obvious flaws in a system like that (ie- a lot of people are morons), but it is what it is. Get over it.
If you want to report a story as bad or a dupe, go right ahead. They provide a way for everyone to do that. But I fail to see how complaining about everything is going to do any good. If anything, more comments are attracting more people to the story that you are saying no one should bother reading. - dognose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Oh, so steve downloaded pligg, which copies dig.. but where does one download pligg?
- panic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You mean digg readers over-reacted? SURPRISE! *end sarcasm*
Digg is a great news source but it can be a beast that needs to be controlled sometimes. One blog post somewhere that happens to get posted on digg.com and happens to get dugg by the users can make or break someone. Whether that person is bad or not, digg readers will believe just about anything on the digg.com homepage, without reading the article. Or even if they do read the article.. who's to say that the article is good? Do some research people.
When I read that story yesterday about this guy, I knew it was stupid. It should never have made it to the homepage. I flamed that story because it was lame. This guy is running a couple of good legitimate web sites and people completely over-reacted. This guy's lucky to have not gotten fired because of you people. Anyway.. do a little research before you ruin someones life. - misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>>>Since when is it a problem to imitate a site? It happens all the time. Everywhere. In every field. All. the. TIME.
It may happen all the time, but people who are trendsetters / original / innovative combined with a solid work ethic and good preparation get the rewards and respect. Those people are the successes (on the web, look at Steve Jobs, Larry Page or Bill Gates, there's tons more in history, politics, medicine, business), you may not like all of them, but they took an original idea and worked it into a successful venture. Copycats do not get respect or usually success, except on small levels. Innovation is respectable, the imitators are just pretenders. - AnubisUK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0e-drama. Great!
- Seumas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Oh, so steve downloaded pligg, which copies dig.. but where does one download pligg?"
I could tell you, but first you must do a jigg. Then I may respond with a link within my .sig. - wisewaif, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What hasn't been mentioned is the mod tendency in the opposite direction.
When Leo slammed Feedburner for divulging his Twit stats, it got a ton of diggs, and everyone was in lockstep with Leo, saying that they would quite the service, even when Leo could not back himself up with facts.
He had made the mistake about divulging Twit's stats himself, and it was not Feedburner's fault. But he trashed the company, and the facts wee glossed over. THe scary thing was that without even knowing any facts, people trusted that Leo was telling the truth, and not playing out a childish fit.
We as digg users, need to dig deeper, and find out if things are true or not, not just blindly follow sensational crap. - misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>> "What I don't want to read (we'll call it "crap" if you like) are all the 3-year-olds complaining about what should and shouldn't be submitted. The whole idea behind this site is that there are no limits. The users decide what is popular and what's not. There are obvious flaws in a system like that (ie- a lot of people are morons), but it is what it is. Get over it.
If you want to report a story as bad or a dupe, go right ahead. They provide a way for everyone to do that. But I fail to see how complaining about everything is going to do any good. If anything, more comments are attracting more people to the story that you are saying no one should bother reading."
Yes! Yes! Yes! Zing! - raptorGT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"...patently false accusation was made against me."
I didn't patent anything... did you? Maybe he means "blatently"??? And as for "false", I think I know what I read and I think I know where it can from and you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar. *slaps you on the wrist* Now don't do it again!
"...evidently without much investigation by many digg readers."
What kind of horse pewp is he talking about? I saw the code, I saw "digg" plastered all over it. This is like walking into your house, seeing your wife with a knife, a brown ring around her mouth, and a chocolate cake on the counter that's missing a slice. Then, with a muffled voice, "Honey, I know this looks bad, but I didn't do it!" she defends herself. I'm sorry, but calling the people who caught you with your pants down; "liars", is not how you win votes in my book. - wisewaif, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It should also be mentioned that Kevin has sad in the past that he would release a Digg API. That someone decided not to wait, and create one themselves is a service. Ripping off their code was bad, but how was Steve Mallette to know that? It was a tool that was available to everyone, and had been reported on on digg before. I commend the people in the initial story who said that it was untrue.
- billpoly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4And this, my friends, is why Digg will never succeed as a media outlet. Slander is not news.
- compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I can't believe he didn't notice that the images were the exact same. For someone who spends a lot of time on digg should know what the ***** images look like. My guess is he just looked the other way and he himself refused to research further. He's still a fag although not as big of one that he didn't actually do the copy and pasting himself.
- shedao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Guys, just because this site allows posts from virtually anywhere doesn't mean that digg isn't susceptible to the same libel laws as any other site. Or maybe those same laws will trickle down to you! If you accuse someone of something malicious please do a little bit of research and ask all parties involved what their take is.
God knows what would have happened if this had been a party playing hardball, like say The Church of Scientology. Don't let this type of act ruin a good thing.
From the DIGG terms of use:
"By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree not to use the Services:..
to contribute any Content that is infringing, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, abusive, offensive or otherwise violates any law or right of any third party;" - Slimer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Umm.. i'm farking confused... and actually somewhat indifferent
if someone would be as kind as to post some sort of a summary to this whole ordeal..
i think it could explain the following:
1) who steve mallete is
2) what was said about him that is untrue
3) what "actually" happened
4) what pligg is
and
5) what about digg is closed source that could benefit from being opened
coolz - MacGyver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think the bigger issue is that this guy is a ***** web designer/webmaster. iTunesLove and LinuxFilter look identical, except one says iTunesLove and one says LinuxFilter at the top. Even if he did get the code from pligg, he should try and be a little more creative and come up with an original design.
- Zonkzor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I don't know where all this controversy is coming from. I read Digg religiously and never heard anything about this. Someone took some CSS. OHHHH NOOOESSS!!!111oneone.
=-----
How To Be A http://CollegeCheapskate.com
-----= - PlancksCnst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg readers are not over reacting. You might say a few individuals that read digg overreacted, if you call an idiotic comment overreacting. Overall what happened, is there was a story that was interesting. What heppens when there is an interesting story? You digg it. It does not mean the story is true; it means it is interesting to the person who dugg it. It just so happens that many people thought it was interesting (of course), so it got tot the front page (note, this does not mean it is true or that digg readers think it's true). The angry comments on digg were definitely a minority and most were moderated down. There was a comment about pligg within the first 1/2 hour that it was up. I see no comment spam on any of his sites, and no story spam on his linuxfilter site. I believe the community as a whole reacted about the same way they do to anything else on digg - there was nothing outrageous.
Now I can't say the same for the whole priceritephoto fiasco. - SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"What kind of horse pewp is he talking about? I saw the code, I saw "digg" plastered all over it"
I assume, as studious as you are that you went and investigated Pligg's code too? The open-source mename is where the damage was done, not Steve. - MasterDwarf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sounds like he's a stand up guy. Too bad he got royally slammed.
-
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by