Comments on: Why Digg Needs the Bury Brigade

By: Social-Media-News.com » Rose Waffles on Digg Censorship

Social-Media-News.com » Rose Waffles on Digg Censorship — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:23:52 +0000

[...] not come as news to you, especially since one of our previous posts pretty convincingly proved that Digg was censoring their front page content to prevent any articles critical of Digg from hitting their front page. However, in this latest [...]

By: Paul Levinson

Paul Levinson — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 00:18:54 +0000

Good analysis. http://www.paullevinson.net/archives/digg_and_the_oneman_truth_squa.phtml

By: Cinnimod

Cinnimod — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 21:11:19 +0000

Wouldn’t it be best if they removed the bury function altogether? I mean, what is its purpose, except for all the things we’re attacking here? The suppression of free speech, the removal of things we don’t like seeing on Digg. Some folks on the “On Buries and Blocking” Digg thread have said “if you don’t like it don’t Digg it”. Shouldn’t that be enough? Instead of negative action, inaction serves the purpose well.

If enough people think the story is worth reading, it becomes popular. And even then, if you read the title and the summary and you disagree with it, don’t read it. If you read the article and you disagree with it, you’re usually free to discuss it on the site or in the Digg thread. How does Digg hurt if an article becomes popular that people disagree with? I’m failing to see the major malfunction with removing Bury altogether.

I can say for certain that yes, every now and then the big guys running Digg throttle or squelch a story they don’t like seeing. They can tell you whatever stories they want but the fact is, they’re real people with real views; in fact, they have stronger views than most of us, or they wouldn’t have started the Digg revolution. You would do the same thing in their place, no matter what you may say. People who get power use power.

By: asdf

asdf — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:30:30 +0000

WTF is wrong with burying a story if I don’t like it?

By: Ethan

Ethan — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:23:05 +0000

I think you are missing the point. The problem is that if the bury brigade exists, then it totally negates the whole idea of digg. If there is a group of like minded individuals with the means to crate a concerted bury effort to skew the system in thier favor, then Digg is just another Slashdot, a news sight where only approved stories make the front page.

By: Jonas Parker

Jonas Parker — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:01:54 +0000

All left-wingers need a “bury brigade”, if only to keep people in the dark. Question is, how long will Digg still have an audience beyond the lunatic-left fringe when normal folks finally decide that they really don’t need their news censored and abandon the site en masse?

By: Pops

Pops — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 19:48:22 +0000

Another thing that not releasing bury data does is to protect users from being buried in retaliation. I can see Digg deteriorating to a point where every story is buried or, conversely, where no one buries anything.

Still I think they could limit the number of percentage of stories a user can bury and while they’re at it, initiate some kind of second chance section.