Getting My DIGG In
Becky over at Just a Girl in short shorts talking about whatever asked bloggers to repost her article and DIGG them just to annoy DIGGERS. I sympathize with her problem: there are bury brigades that instantly bury her articles as soon as they get DUGG.
I have written about this problem previously in my articles I died in less than 4 hours on DIGG and DIGG is Filled with Liberal Idiots.
Becky has asked bloggers to repost her article and submit it to DIGG.
SO here it is:
Geeky guys drive me crazy. And Kevin Rose is no exception. Good Geeks actually believe it is possible to build and tweak algorithms so that the Electronic Frontier is a pure democracy. They admit there are Evil Geeky guys out trying to undermine that democracy, for their own nefarious purposes, but in their vanity the Good Geeks are convinced they can keep one step ahead.
Last March, I and a number of other people noticed, that it appeared there were Bury Brigades at Digg.
Everyone knows the easiest way to get rid of a story submitted to Digg, is to bury it when it first appears, and then there is no chance of it ever making what Digg reverently calls "The Front Page.”
I came to the conclusion this was happening to me when I was tipped off by my favorite Geek.
I went to high school with my Geek, and he is eternally indebted to me, because I asked him to the Sadie Hawkins(in return for a promise of lifetime homework and techie assistance). He is now one of those guys that retired from Microsoft a multimillionaire before his thirtieth birthday.
Anyway, my Geek friend turned me on to Digg Spy. In there you can view users digging and burying stories in real time. I watched, and my stories were being massively buried as soon as they hit Digg.
Other people noticed this was widespread. So Kevin Rose spoke up.
In the classic way of Geeks, Kevin carefully explained how they don't show us everything in Digg Spy and assured everyone the algorithms and systems were constantly changed and tweaked "to ensure a diverse group of users promote or bury stories.
”I don't think we need to dwell on a contention that is so arrogantly full of shit.
I can not prove it, but from the comments and messages I have received from Diggers I believe there are a couple of reasons I am buried. First, Geeks are generally progressives and I am a conservative, albeit of a libertarian mindset—but they don't understand that. Second, like many Geeks, their sexual development is rather stunted—and are quite misogynistic and homophobic in an adolescent sort of way. So they do not like their progressive viewpoints ridiculed by an intelligent conservative lesbian.
Last week this blog was banned from Digg because of "adult content.” I am not whining about this, I honestly don't care, and because my stories were being buried anyway, it was not a source of much traffic.
I drone on monotonously only because some readers have asked for more explanation and so people will understand how all this web 2.0 stuff really works. It is really much more like Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution than a New England townhall meeting. In fact, Jan Lanier has called it Digital Maoism.
Digg, and all the similar social networking sites, run on a mob mentality. Boys and girls sit in their lonely cubicles, or their Mom's basement, and band together into brigades who either push or destroy various people or ideas e.g. Digg each other and bury others. Sometimes they even get scary.
The Web 2.0 proponents believe this will supplant the old capitalist system of Big Media choosing our news and entertainment for us. But whether digital mobs are a qualitatively superior way of promoting cultural and political developments is the real question.
Mobs are by their nature anti-democratic. And they often don't want democratic processes to work. The online presidential straw polls are a good example. If these polls are to be believed it is not even necessary to hold a General Election, Ron Paul will be elected by acclamation. But, as far as I can tell, the Netkooks are not fooling anyone, except themselves, all the while irritating many.
They will also use dirty tricks. Their favorite, which is not surprising given their dweebie backgrounds, is to be tattletales. They report stuff as being pornography or mature content. These guys are not actually offended by anything they see, it is just a means to an end. After the report is received by some corporate coward at the Internet Corporation, he takes a look, sees a topless woman—and sends the whole domain to the round file.
This has happened to me before. And it was even recognized by one of Google's staffers.
The recent ban by Digg happened when I posted Uber-Boob Fascination. Although it featured two images of topless women , that was not really the reason the Diggers were offended. They did not like the discussion of the uber-attention testosterone drenched uber-jerks have for uber-boobs, and how women do not always appreciate it all that much.
I have sent this e-mail to Digg a couple of times:
"I have inquired before why Ron Paul and Goldwater Conservatives nor Clinton, Huckabee and Mr. Jefferson nor Happy Repeal Day cannot be submitted because of "adult content" but The Poop Tube is perfectly ok.
I realize you are quite refined, but are you not going a bit far?
Although the blog may at times be "naughty" in a Wonkette or Playboy way, it is quite tame by Internet standards. The real problem is that many of the diggers do not dig the blog, because of the opinions expressed therein, not because they are deeply offended by any language or images. This is just a method to augment their organized burying efforts which have been going on for months.
Please let me know.
~Becky”
They are just going to ignore me, and I am not not going to pursue it further. But I welcome anyone who might like to repost this (and submit it to Digg, etc.). It would be a step toward educating people on how all this stuff really works.
As Kevin Rose always gags out:Digg On.
P.S. --Please note that to actually get patterns of Digg burials from Digg Spy some supplemental code was needed, which my friend sent to me. I assume it is similar to the code provided by the person whom Kevin Rose responded to.
It is quite interesting that as soon as that code was publicly posted, the hole in Digg was plugged, so it is no longer possible, at least in this way, to get the same detailed information on burying patterns. And of course Kevin affirmatively states, in the quotation and link above, that we should not have that kind of information for the greater good of the community.
~Becky
