A great article by Muhammed Saleem on Digg’s democracy over at The Mulife.
There are two potential ways of solving this problem:
- Keep the burying system but remove the ‘bury as lame’ option. This way people can report content that is flawed in some way (and can either be fixed or deserves to be removed) but at the same time are unable to remove content just because they disagree with it.
- Allow people to bury the content as lame but display the names of the people marking content as lame and make them explain why they think that the content is lame, possibly via comments. This will force people to think twice before marking something as lame, and by making them write down their reasons you may even lead to productive conversation and debate.
Last days I have seriously been wondering if Digg’s bury and blacklisting policy is not turning digg into a censored state.
Read more about Digg’s spam and blacklisting policy here and here.
2 have made me smarter ↓
1 Avitable // Dec 29, 2006 at 1:40 pm// View all comments by Avitable//
+0
I’ve never used Digg.com, or any of those news aggregating sites, other than Fark.
2 Franky // Dec 29, 2006 at 4:07 pm// View all comments by Franky//
+0
Avitable, I have been a regular when digg started, left beginning of the year and then started a new profile some months ago but most of time I do forget Digg.
Although I have the FF extension and digg when I read something interesting.
But there is an interesting culture around digg (also fark of course) and surely the controversy lately has some power.
I think right at the moment digg is on his way to become just as bad as the Chinese government. The spamm policy, combined with the bury brigade are a dangerous, non-democratic thing.
Many of the blogs I read are blacklisted. And I am sure others I read will be soon.
How’s that for social news?