Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Growing Censorship Concerns at Digg

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the this-is-never-pretty dept.

473

I find site rivalries boring, but growing concerns over Digg "censorship" have been submitted steadily for the last few months. Today two such stories were submitted so numerous that I had little choice but to post. The first claims that Digg is the editor's playground- it explains how a few users control Digg, and that it's not really the 'Democracy' that they claim it to be. Personally I think this is all totally within the rights of their editors to choose content however they like. But it's less pleasant when combined with accounts getting banned for posting content critical of digg, and watching other content getting removed for being critical of sponsors (also, here is Kevin Rose's reply).

cancel ×

473 comments

This should be fun (5, Insightful)

Sanity (1431) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166303)

Of course, it would be remiss not to point out that Slashdot has also been accused [idge.net] of forms of censorship.

It is also worth noting that Digg has rapidly gained popularity to the point that Slashdot and Digg are now neck and neck [alexa.com] according to Alexa.

Digg is an interesting site that implements a number of things many long-time Slashdot users have wished Slashdot would do for quite some time. It would be a shame if they are failing to live up to their claim of non-hierarchial editorial control. If this is true, then they deserve to be outed.

Re:This should be fun (5, Informative)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166366)

Aye. My account was banned years ago from moderation for moderating up a post on slashdot critical of slashdot policies.
The same happened to others.

Re:This should be fun (3, Interesting)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166475)

So was mine - it is only in the past 12 or so months that I have been able to mod again.

Re:This should be fun (2, Interesting)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166525)

Same here. Despite having had excellent karma for well over 2 years, I never get to moderate since I got hit with the bitchslap for criticising Michela Sims.

Re:This should be fun (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166591)

It may have been just because of meta-moderation that lowered your moderation ability. When you Modded that post up Meta-Moderators figured didn't agree with the moderation and so your private moderation score dropped for a while. A similar thing happened a while back when I decided to get even with someone who responded to my post and really annoyed me. So I had Mod Points at the time so I went in and searched for that user and I modded everything he had that I could moderate as a Troll. Shortly after that I didn't have moderation rights for a few months. Most likely because Meta Moderators saw that completely untoll marked as troll and Meta-Moderated it correctly. The problem with systems like Digg and Slashdot it is easy to think you are purposely being censored but you may just be a victim of software algorithms, based on democratic results.

Re:This should be fun (3, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166640)

So, you abused the moderation system and then were denied access to it? I can see how people would think that's unfair.

To be honest, a lot of these "F'ing censoring bastards!" posts come from trolls who hate seeing a particularly good troll post get canned. If you're trying to game the system and get called on it, don't be surprised when you lose privleges. That's all I'm saying.

Re:This should be fun (1, Funny)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166684)

I didn't abuse the moderation system.
It was a legitimate critique of slashdot policies. Much like this discussion is of digg's.

My moderation up until that point had been considered and careful.

Again. the admins have right to be dicks. But they can pretend that they are doing it for the good of the users.

Re:This should be fun (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166648)

Unlikely.
Many many people had moderated that post up, and the general moderation was agreed on. The moderation was repeatedly flattened by slashdot admins.
Furthermore, the result was instantaneous, as I discovered as I read the thread.
Also, it persisted ever since (over a period now of at least 4 years, don't remember exactly) - despite occasional experiments at being a good meta moderator
and of course having excellent karma.

Fact is, slashdot admins bitchslap whoever they want. They have the right to, I guess, on their site, but is poor behaviour none the less.

Re:This should be fun (5, Insightful)

Kethinov (636034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166390)

With respect, the contention here is that the Digg admins do this stuff in secret, whereas the Slashdot editors are completely honest about exerting editorial control over stories and sometimes, but rarely, comments.

Re:This should be fun (0)

Dis*abstraction (967890) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166536)

That contention, then, is wrong. Slashdot editors are known to exert the "bitchslap," downmodding a user's entire past comment history (including anonymous postings) at once, locking them out of posting for months. Acknowledgment or explanation is rarely granted. I don't care enough to Google for supporting evidence myself, but you could do it with five minutes free time. Point? It's perfectly valid to criticize Digg for being too closed--but don't think for one second Slashdot is any more transparent.

Re:This should be fun (2, Informative)

Troed (102527) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166645)

Umm. You do realise there's a LOT of people on Slashdot that suddenly got their moderating priviligies (but not meta-moderation interestingly enough) removed and, as far as I know, no one has ever been told why?

Yes, I'm one of them.

Re:This should be fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166522)

...and the end result is that Digg has become a site full of self-important fanboys more interested in explaining why they didn't "Digg" the article rather than providing anything substantial to the conversation. The new comment system has done nothing to stop the legions of attention-starved posters who scream "NO DIGGGGGGG!!!" as if people really care what they think.

Re:This should be fun (4, Interesting)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166524)

As I have pointed out after previous mentions of Alexa, Digg has an obsession with Alexa stats that has lead many Digg users to install Alexa for the sake of adding to the view count for Digg.

Re:This should be fun (4, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166533)

I quit taking Digg serious shortly after I thought I liked it, soley because of the obvious censoring they do, all in secret. Also because they edited my comments, changing the context, AND they were not against Digg or anyone else. Just simply Admin abuse.

I still find a story or two that is interesting, but mainly I just try to mod up the trash just to prove how fucked up and bias it is.

Digg is already old news, earning perhaps a footnote in Wikipedia someday.

Re:This should be fun (5, Interesting)

grazzy (56382) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166679)

The main problem with digg at the moment is the inmature style of writing most of it users has. A quickly written story about a great thing (tm) will get more diggs than the carefully written one that is posted 5 minutes later. This is a huge disadvantage for digg as I have to read the awfully written summaries to find the goodies.

And I'm not even a native english-speaker.

Re:This should be fun (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166685)

I don't think it much matters. I tried Digg for a week or so and found most of the stories to be incredibly worthless, the discussion to be drole and flooded with either idiots or trolls, and the user interface to be counter-intuitive at best. So at this point, these "accusations" are just confirmation to me that it's not for anyone wanting open and honest discussion.

Boo hoo (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166306)

You don't like it? Don't use it.

Fair enough, but... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166389)

...in order to not like it, you need to know it is happening.

Not Jealous! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166644)

If they have crazy editors, we have crazy Anonymous Cowards!

Accusing All Commander Tacos (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166307)

So you build a website that acts as a community (a webmunity?). And one of the great things is that you get to be God of Gods at your webmunity and do whatever you want to users. You giveth life and taketh life away!

And all is good.

But your reader base hates you for it. And one day, dissent might arise. If you don't address it you risk losing your user base. If you try to cover it up and the truth breaks out, I guarantee you will lose your user base.

So the editors do what they want and you vote with your clicks. This is no grand concept, we provide them revenue by visiting their sites. We are traveling to their sites by keystrokes and clicks (not our feet) so vote with them and everyone is happy!

If you can't find a fair site, build your own! Show us how it's done and let us know where it's at. I, for one, would like to see more slash/digg hybrids popping up that rate everything (stories, users, comments, etc) and have a tight handle on who gets how many mod points. I don't care for the easy exploitation of digg and I don't care for the veto happy choice editors for Slashdot.

This isn't a cold war (yet) since they aren't openly bashing each other like the USSR Vs USA war ... or is it? Is this the opening salvo in a war of words between the editors of Digg and Slashdot? I hope not, this site is the center of enough flamewars as it is.

It would most likely boil down to a witch hunt. Sites will be judged by two qualities: fascist nazism & crap content. It's like precision versus recall, everyone has their own preferred happy medium.

Frankly, the Godaddy digg [digg.com] seems to be there and intact. But I did have to Google it. Remember, you can hate the diggers who submit (and digg) crap [digg.com] , the GNAA trolls [slashdot.org] & Adolf Hitroll [slashdot.org] but only as much as you hate your freedom to submit, digg and post yourself.

I don't understand (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166545)

Remember, you can hate the diggers who submit (and digg) crap, the GNAA trolls & Adolf Hitroll but only as much as you hate your freedom to submit, digg and post yourself.

Freedom is not a binary concept

Consider the jihad (0)

pythonguyy (880807) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166561)

Hi. I represent anti-slash. We have entered into sacred jihad against slashdot's editors to expose their censorship. We operate through informative posts such as this one and by trolling to discredit the site.

Consider the following evidence against the infidels: anti-slash (http://anti-slash.org/ [anti-slash.org] ) has recently compiled a library of injustices [anti-slash.org] that precisely document the abuses of slashdot's editors. From the stupidity to the censorship, you can view and share the facts all recorded in one place. Consider especially the case of the infamous slashdot troll investigation post [kuro5hin.org] .

I'd also like to take this opportunity to invite you to use the database tool [anti-slash.org] . With this database of highly-moderated slashdot posts, you can repost and gain carma for future jihad operations, and suck up mod points and pollute the meta-moderation system. These disruptive activities help lower slashdot's already low signal-to-noise ratio and further discredit the editors.

In sacred jihad,

jihadi_31337

Please indicate higher karma for parent post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166667)

Gee, Digg comes along and takes all of Slashdot's ad revenue...

...and this story comes along. No bias there!

As if Slashdot didn't have its own concerns? (0, Flamebait)

dhakbar (783117) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166309)

nt

Old news (5, Funny)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166314)

This was posted on Digg two days ago...

I saw this on digg weeks ago! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166315)

This article was censored on digg weeks ago! Slashdot can't keep up!

DIGG the Slashdot story here ... (5, Funny)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166320)

Just so we complete the circle, here's a DIGG on this /. story ... ;-) [digg.com]

Re:DIGG the Slashdot story here ... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166332)

Begun, this nerd war has.

Episode V: The Slash Dots Back (5, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166577)

It is a dark time for Web 2.0. Although the Beatles_Beatles has been destroyed, Slashbot troops have driven the Digg forces from their Ajax den and pursued them across the Internet.

Evading the dreaded Slashdot Moderator Fleet, a group of Web 2.0 upstarts led by Kevin Rose has established a new Digg site on the remote web servers of Revision3 Corporation.

The evil lord Darth Neal, obsessed with finding young Rose, has dispatched thousands of remote links, DDoSing into the far reaches of webspace....

Re:DIGG the Slashdot story here ... (1)

benjjj (949782) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166394)

Wow, and entirely without any reference to AJAX or Web 2.0.

Oh noes! (4, Funny)

Kethinov (636034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166559)

Slashdot and Digg are linking to each other! An endless loop of Slashdot Effect and Digg Effect! Is the internet going to explode?

Re:Oh noes! (5, Funny)

Bugs42 (788576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166598)

No, it won't explode... it'll just use up the world's collective bandwidth until the porn-freaks, deprived of their sustenance, destroy every computer in the world in rage.

Re:DIGG the Slashdot story here ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166570)

And that digg article has now been officially buried too...hmmm the conspiracy continues

It always comes to this. (3, Interesting)

Godeke (32895) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166331)

Every online community has to make some hard decisions. If you take Kevin Rose's explanation at face value, the story removals were due to the community's response to those stories. The item that showed that the same voters were being used to bring an uncommented story to the front page is more interesting, as that is harder to explain away.

Either way, this sounds a *lot* like the stories about Wikipedia's Office account and the stuff that goes on there. Slashdot has had it's share of accusations of administrator manipulations behind the scenes. The question then comes down to: what should the power of the administrator be?

In the case of Slashdot, there is organized resistance against the site via GNAA and other troll groups, not to mention the relentless beating of stupid people upon its shores in an unorganized manner. Overall, I have to say that the end result of the administrator's effort has been successful in keeping the site useful.

Sites like Digg have to make the same types of choices to preserve the value of the site in the face of an endless barrage of stupidity as well. If they are having to promote stories by hand, it indicates that the core ideal has failed it: but reality very rarely treats ideals gently. Wikipedia has learned that lesson as has Slashdot. Looks like it is Digg's turn to find the balance point that is a fit for them.

Re:It always comes to this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166460)

In the case of Slashdot, there is organized resistance against the site via GNAA

What could the Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica [wikipedia.org] possibly have against Slashdot!?

Re:It always comes to this. (5, Interesting)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166658)

Slashdot (and Digg for that matter), is like any organized group -- there will be people who will join because they want to commiserate with the like-minded, there will be people who are "just curious", and then there will be people of questionable character who are there to spread their own form of idiocy and bigotry. Can't be helped -- if you could do an accurate breakdown of membership by personality type, it would probably fit the Bell curve to a tee.

We're always going to suffer with this. I happen to think Slashdot's system, while not perfect, is certainly better than some. At least, despite the many times I have incurred some faction's wrath with my comments, I feel like I'm communicating with a fairly well-read and intelligent group most of the time. Some people don't like me and that's their perogative. I keep on posting because I think for the most part people appreciate my adding to the discourse and because I don't really care what others think ultimately, as they only have my posts to go by and don't know the real "me."

That said, I'd never want a faction to come along and mod me up all the time simply because they "like" me, anymore than I want a faction to mod me down because they "hate" me. I"ve noted an inequity now and again, as it's obvious someone doesn't have a sense of humor, doesn't understand my sense of humor, or got their hands on some mod points and plan to punish the "enemy." I think the moderation system here makes it harder for that kind of thing to go on, and I think Digg could learn a thing or two from the idea.

Another one bites the dust (1)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166340)

Hmmm...favoritism or kickbacks at work here? All I can say is if you lose trust it can be very difficult to get it back. While Slashdot plays favorites and practices a form of censorship, at least they don't delete posts. Do they?

Re:Another one bites the dust (1)

eln (21727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166430)

They have deleted posts at least once in the past, but mostly they're content to blanket-moderate entire threads down to -1. For most Slashdot readers, that effectively deletes those posts, which is why I always read at -1. Sure, the signal-to-noise ratio is terrible, but sometimes there are some real gems at -1.

1069 Diggs: Growing Censorship Concerns at Digg (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166342)

I digged it, did you? er...was it just Slashdotted?

Non Issue? (3, Interesting)

mopslik (688435) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166358)

From TFR (the "fine" reply):

Once a story has received enough user reports it is automatically removed from the digg queue or homepage (depending on where the story is living at that time). The number of reports required varies depending on how many diggs the story has.

Couldn't it simply be that this is all much ado about nothing? If anything, could this not be the case that the "annoyed sponsors" are merely reporting the story as lame, thus burying it?

I'm only an occasional Digg-surfer, so I'm not as familiar with their system as with Slashdot's.

No. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166526)

Sorry, his explanation was bullshit.

I read Digg for a while because I found it to be an interesting idea. The day that story about Go Daddy got pulled off the front page for no good reason was the day I stopped visiting the site. The story was getting more and more "Diggs", and it kept moving up, then, nothing. It was pulled out, which obviously makes it stop getting "Diggs" because nobody was seeing it anymore.

That is not democracy, I can't believe that anybody would rationalize something like "Well it was pulled off the page because it was getting negative reviews" when hundreds of people are obviously not finding any problem with the story since they are "Digging" it.

Digg is bullshit. Go Daddy sponsors their podcast, not Digg. Fiiiiiiiiine, whatever. They get revenue from Diggnation, Diggnation depands on Digg.com, end of fucking story. Kevin Rose is a jackass.

Plausible. (1)

mopslik (688435) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166599)

Sorry, his explanation was bullshit... The story was getting more and more "Diggs", and it kept moving up, then, nothing. It was pulled out, which obviously makes it stop getting "Diggs" because nobody was seeing it anymore.

Would it not be pulled out if an "annoyed sponsor" reported it as Lame N number of times, based on Kevin's explanation? I don't see how your scenario contradicts mine. Here's an illustration:

Assume that a story critical of CompanyX has 200 Diggs. Also assume that a story is removed from the queue if it receives Lame reports of, say, 5% of the number of Diggs. Now, CompanyX wants to bury this story. They need only sign up for a maximum of 10 accounts (less if others report the story themselves) before the story disappears. 20 accounts if 10% is required, whatever. It certainly doesn't seem that unattainable.

From what I've seen, most people Digg/Report stories that are on the main page, and very few people actually bother checking out the queue. Similar to Slashdot, where front-page stories will often have hundreds of replies, whereas those other stories nestled in Games or IT have around 75 a piece.

As for the banning and whatnot, I have no idea. Perhaps there was prior history, or perhaps the editors there really are choosing to exert their editorial powers. It's rather hard to tell when the disjointed info in his blog reads like "I submitted a story, it wasn't Dugg, so I resubmitted the same story, got banned, got reinstated when I asked what happened, then I saw that some stories with very few Diggs are on the front page". IIRC, a story isn't just promoted to the front page based on the number of Diggs, but also the amount of time it has been in the queue, etc.

I can't believe that anybody would rationalize something like "Well it was pulled off the page because it was getting negative reviews" when hundreds of people are obviously not finding any problem with the story since they are "Digging" it.

It depends on the Lame threshold set by the Digg editors. Once it's passed, a story gets removed. Perhaps you should ask Kevin how the threshold is calculated and, if that doesn't seem "democratic", then maybe you'd like to open up discussions on what a suitable threshold would be. Of course, you might not want to submit such a request through Digg. :)

If you think Digg is bad, Slashdot is worse. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166360)

At /. they always censor topics such as

Re:If you think Digg is bad, Slashdot is worse. (1, Insightful)

thedogcow (694111) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166398)

Such as what? Apparently you have been censored while you were typing your post.

Re:If you think Digg is bad, Slashdot is worse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166503)

-1, Obvious

Re:If you think Digg is bad, Slashdot is worse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166549)

Peter Griffin: Okay. We're playing Texas Hold 'Em.
Michael Eisner: Are aces high or low?
Peter Griffin: They go both ways.
Bill Gates: He said, "They go both ways."
Ted Turner: Like a bisexual.
Mr. Pewterschmidt: Thank you, Ted. That was the joke.

There is no democracy in the 'net (5, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166371)

The internet is a collection of tiny dictatorship. It's not a huge democratic thing, and it is even no anarchy (even though it comes as close to the classic definition of anarchy, where everyone governs himself and holds no power over others as it can come).

Every server is owned by someone. And he's the dictator. As benevolent or tyrannic as he wants to be. Those pages that claim they're "democratic" are so because the dictator decided it would be nice to let his "peasants", his users, act as the ruling body. But ultimately, he is in charge.

And ultimately, he hangs if something illegal happens on his page.

The difference to a true dictatorship is only that you have the power to vote with your feet. If the dictatorship isn't to your liking anymore, you can leave. That's it, though. There's no such thing as a virtual coup d'etat (well, you can hack the page, granted, but that's usually overthrown quickly again). You can pick your stuff up and head out. You can even create your own "land" and "declare independence".

But what it comes down to is, that every page, every server is owned by someone. And this someone decides what is displayed, who may write stuff, even who may read it. Like it or leave.

Of course, on the other hand, your "international relationships" (i.e. other pages writing about yours) will quickly go down the drain if you turn out as the new Josef Stalin. And other "countries" will cease their "diplomatic agreements", their links, with you.

So unless you're Google or some other virtual equivalent of the USA, better treat your users nicely.

Re:There is no democracy in the 'net (1)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166489)

The internet is a collection of tiny dictatorship. It's not a huge democratic thing, and it is even no anarchy (even though it comes as close to the classic definition of anarchy, where everyone governs himself and holds no power over others as it can come).

Every server is owned by someone. And he's the dictator. As benevolent or tyrannic as he wants to be. Those pages that claim they're "democratic" are so because the dictator decided it would be nice to let his "peasants", his users, act as the ruling body. But ultimately, he is in charge.


Actually, everybody being the "dictator" of their own property is pretty much what anarchy is. Don't like Slashdot? Grab the slashcode and set up a site just like it which reflects your values better. Thousands of people have done exactly that.

Re:There is no democracy in the 'net (2, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166554)

Well, it's close to anarchy but not to the full extent. After all, as soon as someone enters your turf, your page, you have "governing power" over him. By the classic definition, this would not be necessary because he would govern himself.

Unfortunately, humans will be humans.

Be a little more upfront in the TOS, maybe? (1)

FearTheFrail (666535) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166376)

Personally I think this is all totally within the rights of their editors to choose content however they like.
...sure, but it would be nice if such latitude was mentioned upfront.

Yeah yeah, I know, all of the relevant statements are in place here in the TOS [digg.com] to let us know that it can be done.

But look. Talking up a "power to the proleteriat" angle, only to have stories that question Digg's editorial practices get removed is more like talking out of both sides of one's mouth.

The problem with Digg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166386)

It doesn't take that many people to report a story for it to get yanked from the front page. You can have a story that hundreds of diggs and comments just dissapear without any explanation.

And the ability of everyone to moderate every comment without indicating WHY is leading to abuses.

I've seen every pro-Apple comment get marked down in many stories by people who feel that there are too many Apple stories on Digg.

Interesting stuff last night in Digg (5, Informative)

psycln (937854) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166403)

Two front page articles got pulled off within 10 minutes of being promoted.

Users can easily create email accounts, change their IP address by resetting their router/modem and create accounts in digg to eventually digg their articles.

Non-moderated news never works. Digg _is_ moderated. The poor soles who frequent that site just don't know it. As TFA said, digg.com is more of an editor playground that a democratic proccess of picking news.

here are two examples from yesterday

Example 1 [digg.com] Example 2 [digg.com]

Pity the poor soles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166584)

And the poor haddock and trout.

weird timing (3, Insightful)

towsonu2003 (928663) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166409)

this, the same day I decide to quit "digging" after seeing how their community is racist, sexist, ethnocentric, and so on... weird concidence.

Re:weird timing (1)

Tony (765) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166504)

It is strange timing; I visited Digg for the first time last night because an article of mine had 300 diggs. Kinda cool. But I couldn't get into it, really. It's an interesting concept, but who's got that kind of time?

I guess I could give up /.

Re:weird timing (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166542)

stfu and go back to your own country, you nigger bitch

Bahahaha. Digg is getting slashdotted. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166412)

Serves them right for coming up with the "Digg Effect"... pffft.

Ha! Slashdot jumped on this story quickly! ;-) (2, Interesting)

boxlight (928484) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166413)

Ha! Slashdot jumped on this story quickly! ;-)

Turns out digg's revolutionary "let the users pick the top stories" philosophy isn't letting the editors mold the front page content to their liking.

Digg should just be open about it -- I'm fine with the digg editors assign bonus "diggs" to stories they want featured prominently, but at least they should be honest that they're doing it.

boxlight

It's not a democracy... (1, Interesting)

tktk (540564) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166429)

On Digg, you can only vote to promote a story and have it appear on homepage. You can't vote against the story. The only way a story dies is from old age.

Also, the general idea of a democracy is that everyone has an equal say. I can promote or bury as many comments as I like. If there is a limit, I've haven't send them yet. So if I vote on 20 comments, doesn't that equate me having 20 votes? If the average user only votes on 5 comments, then I effectively have more power.

Re:It's not a democracy... (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166650)

Your argument would be true if you could vote on a single comment multiple times. Since each person is allowed one vote per comment, it is a democracy (as far as comment voting goes).

Re:It's not a democracy... (2, Informative)

Botchka (589180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166661)

Have you ever used digg? Of course you can vote against a story. It's the big ass "problem?" button right under it. You can also undigg a story that you've dugg. Yes you can promote or bury as many comments as you like, but only once per comment. It may bury it for you, but depending on another persons threshold, they may still see it. Sounds to me like instead of voting on comments, you need to figure out how digg actually works..

Digg Sucks... (3, Interesting)

SpectreBlofeld (886224) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166451)

...recently. I greatly enjoyed Digg, and, for a while, I actually preferred Digg's setup and variety of content to Slashdot's. Unfortunately, its rising popularity and increased 'democracy' has led to severe degradation. Any comments posted that go against the grain of popular opinion gets modded down, or even controversial ones - people aren't as likely to mod things up that they agree with as they are to mod down statements they don't like. Say ANYTHING negative of Apple gets modded down to oblivion, whether the comment is valid or not.

Additionally, more and more articles linked hide referral URLs, or link to the submitters blog instead of the actual meaty articles.

I've also grown weary of self-masturbatory articles, such as http://digg.com/technology/Digg_Featured_in_SF_Chr onicle_Article_on_Social_News_Sites [digg.com] . Who wants to go to Digg to read about how great Digg is?

One last nitpick: the extreme sensationalism that goes into the headline writing that submitters choose, in hopes that their headline will be voted up. Unfortunately, it seems to work, as the masses mod up or down without reading the articles.

 

Re:Digg Sucks... (1)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166501)

The comments over there seem to be a lot more childish even than Slashdot. The comment moderation is even stranger: I posted a comment once saying how I find GNOME easier to use than Windows for some things, only to get negatively dugg into oblivion.

Re:Digg Sucks... (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166517)

I also hate the teaser descriptions. I want news on Digg, not coersion to read OTHER news sites. I hate when people write "Read the article to find out which brand of keyboard could slice off your fingers!" when 2 additional words could have told me so.

Re:Digg Sucks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166612)

ANYTHING negative of Apple gets modded down to oblivion, whether the comment is valid or not.

Just like on slashdot then.

Collection of Links on This Issue (1)

TheKeyboardSlayer (729293) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166457)

I started collecting links on this subject a few hours before this hit slashdot... http://linux-blog.org/index.php?/archives/134-The- Dirt-on-Suspicious-Digging-at-Digg.com.html [linux-blog.org] Just FYI for everyone...if you have another link, comment it and I'll update it.

Misinformation (1, Interesting)

appleprophet (233330) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166461)

Ever wonder what that prominently placed "problem?" popup menu was for on Digg? The GoDaddy article was removed simply because enough people used that to report it as "ok, this is lame" and inaccurate. The article basically falsely accused GoDaddy of buying domains that people expressed interest in on their site. According to the vast majority of the comments on the article, the reality is that it was other registrars who intercept GoDaddy's queries (which are necessarily sent to many services in order to see if the domain is taken, iirc). Since GoDaddy is a darling company of many, and the article was patently incorrect and defamatory, many people (as you could see in the comments) reported the article as lame or inaccurate. Hence, it was removed. Oh yeah, GoDaddy isn't even a sponsor of Digg.

As for the other allegations, I have no idea, but if you're going to bash on a rival site, at least do some research before you post false information. Too bad there's no way to report crappy articles on Slashdot...

Re:Misinformation (2, Informative)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166593)

The /. story doesn't really allege anything. It just brings to light the "Growing Censorship Concerns at Digg" (RTFTitle). A concern does not equal or pretend to be a fact.

Isn't Kevin Rose the ex-BSDi salesman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166462)

And, wasn't Mr. Rose fingered as being the 1st "BSD is Dying" poster here on /.?

My view (4, Informative)

thedogcow (694111) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166464)

Each website has its own specific qualities that make it good and bad. For instance, I like Digg because it is updated more frequently than Slashdot (see diggvsdot), but apparently "these updates" maybe too frequent (i.e. stories deleted). I think Slashdot has better comments. I cannot stand Digg comments. Digg comments are the same type of comments that Fark has... people talking about stuff they have no clue of. At least with Slashdot, most of the comments are made by informed people.

Re:My view (1)

spun (1352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166637)

At least with Slashdot, most of the comments are made by informed people.

Don't read at -1 much, do you?

More fun than an election commercial (2, Funny)

CFrankBernard (605994) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166479)

Round 1, Slashdot Diggs For Dirt
Round 2, Dig Slashes Back
Round 3, Slash Diggs Grave
Round 4, Both Sides Look Dirty
Round 5, Audience Can't Tell SlashDigg Apart

Re:More fun than an election commercial (1)

jj00 (599158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166635)


I could make the same argument that this is just a tech tale of Animal Farm.

All news sites are equal, except some are more equal than others...

Had a crack at this myself. (1)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166484)

I noticed this earlier, I tried [digg.com] to say something by circumventing the URL ban, but it didn't work out - got buried like all the other stories about this latest episode. The most successful one [digg.com] so far somehow got buried despite receiving a huge amount of "Diggs".

Today was the first time I ever tried to participate in Digg. I'm not impressed at all. I know that by starting off on such a contentious issue, I've skewed my data, but general consensus in the comments seems to be that people won't "digg" anything that's even slightly critical of Digg.

So I say that the censorship issue is nothing to do with the admins at Digg. It's the users. Here at Slashdot we see views and ideas that are critical of this site all the time, often at +5. This is a very important difference, and I don't think I'll be going back to Digg [caffeination.net] after this. Either too many users are too narrow-minded to listen to potential criticism, or the balance of the story selection algorithm is off, and is too conducive to groupthink.

censorship (1)

glen (19095) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166507)

Slashdot and Digg are not capable of censorship. The first ammendment states "Congress shall make no law....". Slashdot is not Congress, Digg is not Congress.

If you don't like what happens on a website, don't go there, start your own. That's the real democracy of the internet.

Re:censorship (1)

TheGreek (2403) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166693)

Slashdot and Digg are not capable of censorship. The first ammendment states "Congress shall make no law....". Slashdot is not Congress, Digg is not Congress.

You're pretty retarded, there, Son.

They're capable of censorship, all right.

It just isn't "illegal" or "unconstitutional" when they do it.

Digg - "tech" for twelve year olds (4, Insightful)

VonSkippy (892467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166510)

Digg.com, to put it simply, sucks. Without any true editors, their focus and target audience have drifted far from their stated "we're a tech site" definition.

Most stories have no bearing at all on tech, and comments range for the childish to outright stupid.

Digg.com is more like Fark.com, except it's not as good.

As to Kevin Rose, who cares. Like his site, he's a major tech poser.

Re:Digg - "tech" for twelve year olds (2, Interesting)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166696)

Agreed. As soon as I saw Digg pop up in an issue of Wired magazine (AKA Tech Poseur's Journal) I knew it had to be crap. I went over there for a bit and perused articles. There's too much crap over there. Who cares about the social implications of technology for example? That's highly UNINTERESTING to a real tech. Then there's also way too many things like the notification of hard drives on sale for cheap at Best Buy or what have you. You also see too many stories about Windows only software. Again what REAL tech cares about Windows? Frankly, I think the Digg will eventually blow up. One more gripe... not enough opportunity to troll idiot users there. When someone is an idiot, they need to be made aware of it and what better way to do that then troll them? Trolling is an integral part of a real community. Suppress trolling, and you lose the ommunity entirely or even worse, wind up with a virtual gated community. How dull.

Is this a response to the Digg story... (1)

Rytr23 (704409) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166511)

15 minutes ago on the front page of Digg was a link to a review of the two sites with Slashdot taking a vicious beating from the Obvious Digg Fan... Now its "buried" the second this article is posted here.. Wierd..

Awesome! (1)

maelstrom (638) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166518)

Frankly digg has already become more useful to me than Slashdot. I really just keep visiting here out of very old habit. I've been using this site for years and frankly it has been neglected by the "editors". Maybe this will actually encourage some innovation at this site for the first time in years.

Re:Awesome! (1)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166689)

Do you Digg fans even think before you use something to talk trash about Slashdot? This is negative information about Digg, not positive. I understand that Digg users are not accustomed to seeing this kind of information, but I hardly think that talk of censorship on Digg is likely to provoke a of new [slashdot.org] features [slashdot.org] on Slashdot.

Cheating on Digg (1)

grazzy (56382) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166520)

It's way to easy to cheat Digg. Create 50 accounts and you write buzz-word-compliant texts for all the apple freaks to drool over and you have a instant money-machine. There has been numerous stories on the frontpage that promotes lame blogs and/or worthless tools hacked together by 15yr olds which _never_ would have achieved that kind of attention unless someone was doing something fishy.

Ofcourse, I cant prove anything of this .

Where's the unDigg? (1)

jj00 (599158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166537)

Where's the unDigg? It seems to me that you can only show your support for a story by "digging" it, but if you don't like a story your only recourse is to report it. I always thought reporting was meant for something that was inappropriate - like spam.

Their comment system has a thumbs up/down approach, why not use that model for the stories?

Re:Where's the unDigg? (1)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166659)

They have that, it's called "ok, this is lame". Some things seem to decrement the digg count, some don't - I haven't figured that part out yet.

Re:Where's the unDigg? (1)

NewmanBlur (923584) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166691)

You can use the "undigg" link that is immediately to the left of the "problem?" dropdown menu.

!censorship (1)

audi100quattro (869429) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166543)

It's quite hard to make the censorship case though, the kind of stories that do well are perfectly suited to the digg demographic, digital artists, and offcourse mac fans. Other stories do make it, but don't do as well in terms of diggs.

It should only be logical that the demographic play a big role in the kind of stories that do good on digg, It's the simplest of markets, one digg, one user.

diggcode might be good to play around with.

slashdot is more censored (2, Insightful)

peter303 (12292) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166548)

At least on digg you know who is modding you up or down. Plus everyone's article and comments are accepted.
On slashdot you have no idea who is removing your submitted articles and comments, not who is modding you down.

In both groups there is an intolerant and active "politically correct" core. If you dont agree with them on IT or social comments, you get abused.

My prediction is this comment will disappear because it is "wrong".

Re:slashdot is more censored (1)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166632)

You've obviously not spent enough time posting on Digg. People skim down the comments, clicking either on the red or green hand based on their gut reactions to posts. This is called "the tyranny of the masses", and it's in total control of the Digg mindset.

Your comment here, for example, would disappear into the negatives 100% of the time in a Digg thread. Here, it may easily make it to +5.

Digg editing seems populist, Christian-American (2, Interesting)

Leviathant (558659) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166557)

One thing I noticed about Digg stories in the last month or so is that scientific studies would get posted, and then marked as inaccurate, even after an excess of 500 diggs. I'm fairly certain you can guess the theory that was being discussed.

It made me want to post a tongue-in-cheek headline like "Digg and the Christian agenda" but I realize that people on both sides of the ID/Evolution pissing match wouldn't take well to that at all.

What gets really frustrating is that once your story gets marked for review, that's about all you know, and that URL can not be resubmitted. I had a story go front-page fairly quickly, only to disappear. It didn't say why - it had more diggs than other stories on the front page. I had to do a specialized search to find out that it was marked as 'buried.' If Digg can count and display positive diggs, why can't it show the negative marks as well?

I find it a little troubling that a site that rejects stories for not being techy enough seems to also reject stories that are too techie for modern semi-fundamentalist Christian religions.

This is a fundamental problem of 'true' democracy (assuming Digg is a simple voting system.) What is popular is not always what is best. It is for this reason that I personally prefer sites with editors, no matter how many mistakes they may make. I used to go to Digg several times a day, but after actively participating in the system for a few days (and managing to get the word cunnybungler on the front page, if only for a few minutes), this made apparent to me the opaque-to-a-fault rating system driving the site... and now I don't go there as often.

It's still interesting, but I felt pretty disappointed after watching this phenomenon.

Democracy and then some (2, Interesting)

globalar (669767) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166566)

A lot of people promote democracy - "government by the people". Somehow this became a thing for companies to promote and websites to make money off of. But there is more to our idea of democracy that just democracy. There is more to our freedoms than just "do what you want".

The stable democracies today are heavily influenced by Western/liberal democratic republicanism. The Communist statists learned the hard way that founding a society/order on one system was unmaintainable.

The problem in governments is unchecked power. Whether it's the mob or the elite, power needs to be balanced. Digg quite naturally needs to find ways to balance power. Executive powers are always necessary at some point, so it shouldn't be surprising that Digg exercises them. Democracy is only a *part* of the system.

If you think about it, our centrist ideals of freedom really are not absolute freedom, but a balance of freedom and responsibility. We exchange some liberty for a more controlled system.

 

Question about forums along these lines (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166580)

I am just wrapping up a local community website, and we're starting to debate these things heavily before it goes live.

1. Is community self-policing the best approach? If so, what's the best system for ratings? Is there an algorithm that works, because I've seen several good forums break up over complaints about the rating system.

2. Is editing at all a good idea? I say this especially in the face of the emerging view that the DMCA seems to mean that editing equals taking responsibility for all the content.

3. What's the safest yet most open format? How do you work a good and enforcable user agreement around something that is essentially a compromise between conflicting interests?

We're all generally users more often than we are editors. My natural sympathy has been toward the users. But, as I get closer to having to live with the responsibility for a horde's actions, my sympathies are waning.

Is Digg doing the right thing?

If not, what would you tell someone with a similar dilemma to do?

power corrupts ... just look at /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15166603)

doesn't matter how ethical editors or any other people claim to be

in fact, most people are greedy and stupid

greed for personal wealth and power corrupts

slash and digg have both been corrupted by those in power

selfishness rules the world because people simply aren't smart enough to cooperate more

those in power are the least ethical and the most ignoble

their gains come at our loss

and so the evil grows

Kudos to /. for remaining impartial... (1)

Shoeler (180797) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166636)

I know that one of the hardest things to do in a business - and digg and /. are businesses - is to let the customers choose their product all by themselves - even if they find out about that product from your business. That shows morals and ethics, and by putting this story on the front page, /. shows it's taken the moral high road. Cheers!

(Interestingly, I stopped going to digg about 3-4 weeks ago because it takes FOREVER to render when I swich to its tab in FF)

Stop the Inanity!!! (1)

neuraljazz (307431) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166641)

Wikipedia BLAH BLAH BLAH. Digg BLAH BLAH BLAH. We're victims of a few BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Don't like it? Go create the Competition with Integrity... and once you sell out like DiggH^H^H^H^ GoogleH^H^H^ Yahoo... (insert new stalwart defender of your rights which was once a cool website with an idea), then you'll understand: true democratic freedom for all things is Anarchy. And if you/you're company/your website has goals, anarchy is your enemy.

Is there a way to filter articles on slashdot so I never have to see Wikipedia/Digg whiners ever again?

perhaps... (1)

solidtransient (883338) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166649)

.. the two sites should merge into a single super site! Long live Sliggdot!

Very true (2, Interesting)

adzoox (615327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166651)

I submit my blog entries to digg regularly (and so do my readers)

Every other one gets a crappy comment on it ... like blog spam or lame article. The commenter has neither read nor commented on what was right or wrong about the article.

It made me so mad the other day I posted in the comments to my own submission: "Take your crappy comments to Slashdot!"

Digg has more or less turned into a censorship site because a few users DO ruin and bury good articles and promote silly ones.

Funny ?. would post this because the joke is: calling Digg .... Slashdigg

True Anonymity (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166680)

I'd love to see Slashdot's "rejected" queue. That would really be a testament to "open source", of the journalistic kind.

Censorship wensorship, Huh !! (1)

HampiRocks (769257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15166694)

The racist, xenophobic and jingoist slur's that is posted now a days in slashdot and digg makes me doubt that there is any censorship in these forums.

But then wait who r the moderators !!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...