Digg cracking down on the Diggbat bury brigades?
posted at 3:21 pm on May 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Not really, or at least not on ideological grounds. They’re simply asking them to read the stories before they make a judgment. Or, to put it in practical terms, “wait two minutes after the story hits the page before flushing it down the toilet for having been authored by a conservative.”
It’s nice to have it confirmed, though, that many of these cretins aren’t even willing to read the post before pulling the plunger. Thanks to Weasel Zippers for the tip.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Digg and every other online site (including yahoo and youTube) seriously needs to dump any kind of recomendation/condemnation.
Its a thing that is far too easy to abuse.
Its online censorship of the mob.
William Amos on May 23, 2007 at 3:59 PM
BTW Allah or Ian here is a good new hillary pic for you
Hillary closeup
William Amos on May 23, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Digg’s entire business model is based on communitty participation. How could they possibly do what you say?
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 23, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Unless it is jihadi or Nazi material. Then grup condemnation has no effect.
That’s a keeper.
Valiant on May 23, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Hmmm. The digg big dogs have assumed that the cretins can read…..
locomotivebreath1901 on May 23, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Oh my god that Hillary pick is just plain disturbing William Amos. Now I need to find one of those flashy things from MIB that erases memory. Yikes.
Zetterson on May 23, 2007 at 4:06 PM
No wonder Bill avoids it for all but 70 days a year.
ej_pez on May 23, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Don’t get too excited, this is just to stop Ron Paul spam. It’s unholy just how many diggs Ron Paul mobs get in on a story in mere minutes.
Vincenzo on May 23, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Shiver me timbers!
rightside on May 23, 2007 at 4:10 PM
William you need to post it at Digg.
(evil Irishman….evil evil man)
Limerick on May 23, 2007 at 4:11 PM
AIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
Bad Candy on May 23, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Im not saying people cant post articles. Im saying that people shouldnt have the power to censor or control anyone elses posts.
William Amos on May 23, 2007 at 4:34 PM
“And now, young Skywalker…you will die!”
Slublog on May 23, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Hey William,
Great Link. You captured Jack Nicholson as the Joker perfectly. Great pic!!
there it is on May 23, 2007 at 4:35 PM
That Hill pic reminds me of the creepy lady with the fish in Soundgardens Black Hole Sun video.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qiSkyEyBczU&mode=related&search=
Bad Candy on May 23, 2007 at 4:44 PM
I wasn’t so foolish as to click on the link. Don’t need my mind f* with today, enough bad news on the wires as is.
Aylios on May 23, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Click on this link instead
Micheal Moore vs Fred Thompson
William Amos on May 23, 2007 at 4:54 PM
That pic is actually Hillary as the Grinch.
thomashton on May 23, 2007 at 5:55 PM
They couldn’t, but it’s a glaring problem that’s built in to the whole web 2.0 concept. Just as wikipedia shows the problem of link saturation, digg shows the problem of wholly interactive media.
The answer is probably ‘communities.’ —that’s right; watch for it; segregation goes electronic :)
Axe on May 23, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Axe,
What do you mean link saturation?
Tim Burton on May 23, 2007 at 7:01 PM
It’s a vague set of arguments that we’ve been trying to formalize over here; I’m not sure if anyone else has actually done it.
There is a problem with linking documents such that the linking ceases to be useful after a certain point; a person can get more work done (using a narrow definition, “finding out the answer to a specific question more quickly”) if fewer links were used. This idea is illustrated by asking when information should be repeated in context, and when fragments of information, independent of context, should be linked together to form a whole (complete localization).
An example of a document that is effectively ‘unlinked’ (and completely saturated) is a text where every single word is linked to an index of that word—probably very useful in some circumstances, but for most uses, a person would probably just read the text without clicking anything, because the person would know following the links walks them down an endless (literally) rabbit trail. They’ll just stick with the information on the page. The few links they would actually take? Maybe someone’s name, or another document that is given as the authority on the subject: those are the useful links.
All theory, all arguable, all interesting if software is your gig :) But sorry about that — I was actually just thinking out loud I guess.
Axe on May 23, 2007 at 8:04 PM
Digg has failed as a reputable internet social site. Just look at the most popular stories any time of any day to see the proof that it is as irrelevant as it could get.
DannoJyd on May 23, 2007 at 8:33 PM