Buried: The Rise and Fall of the Self-Moderated

Being a scatterbrained, spontaneous, ADHD-type, there are very few websites that I visit regularly.  Cut through the fog, however, and there are two that come to mind.  I visit Fark and Digg between 6-8 times a day, although, as of late, Digg has lost much of its luster for me, and I know I am not alone in saying so.

I suppose it makes sense to begin at the beginning, and for anyone not in the know, Digg touts itself as a social networking site, whereupon its users can “digg,” or submit, stories they find on other sites.  As a submission garners more and more diggs, it rises to the top of the Digg Top 10 links.  Simultaneously, users are permitted to “Bury” stories they find uninteresting or irrelevant.  Site moderation is (allegedly) minimal, giving Digg users near-complete control over the site’s content.  Digg is described by Wikipedia, inaccurately, as a “social democracy.”  Since its inception in the Fall of 2004, it has become a social disaster, a bastion of sensationalism, redundancy, and irrelevance.  And as for democracy?  At best, Digg is a bastardized off-product thereof.

So, the great question is, how does a respectable techno-news hub transform into The National Enquirer of the Internet, or at least, the New York Post?  Digg users have moved from a variety of tech and entertainment-based content to (largely) politically charged, agenda-based reporting.  And while the Technology section brazenly displays itself as the first link on the top of the site, I feel as though it has fallen to “back-burner” status.  To prove my point, follow this link to the list of the top Dugg sites in the past year.  They are almost exclusively political.  http://digg.com/all/popular/365days

Over the past six months, I have noticed the development of disturbing trends seen in the top 10 Articles on Digg, and how these trends have become largely political, both in the content submitted and in the context of the site itself.

At the height of Internet Ronmania, there would often be three or more links in the top 10 about the former Republican candidate for presidency.  It should come as no surprise to anyone that Digg, its “no-moderation” principles, and the community it generated would overwhelmingly support a libertarian.  Consequently, Dr. Paul never had to lift a finger to run his greatest asset: his Internet (financial) juggernaut.  The Digg politicos had one name, and one leader.  If you supported another candidate, your voice would not be heard.  Of course, when Digg (and I mean its users, as they power the site) was hit with the hammer of reality, that Ron Paul, America’s only hope, stood no chance of winning the presidency, they re-organized their groupthink to support Barack Obama (a surprising and ironic choice in the wake of the Ron Paul craze), now favorite among techies and Young Americans.

Hillary Clinton supporter?  Don’t even bother submitting a story.  Fan of the current administration?  Don’t even go near the site.  John McCain?  Generally disliked by Digg, surprisingly, as McCain has been outspoken in judicial appointments strongly enforcing the ideals in the US Constitution, whereas Obama presents himself as a candidate in favor of a stronger government.

And out of this political discourse comes the purportion that Digg is a social democracy, which is absurd.  The notion of “everyone has control,” or “everyone has a voice” is especially paradoxical (that is: if everyone has control, noone has control) in a system that is inherently flawed in two ways.

1.  The Universal Ability to Submit Stories is Heavily Abused

In a true democracy, everyone has the same access to power; that is, anyone can get themselves in the coveted top 10 if they submit a story.  Although this is still technically true, greed, corruption, and groupthink are quick to repress those who do not follow the herd.

For example, headlines often have sensationalist twists, as they are re-worded, inaccurately, by the submitter.  I recall many examples where the submitter’s “interpretation” of the article does not match their titling of the submission.  There is a policing option in place, users may report the article content as inaccurate, but by the time the link hits the front page, the damage has already been done.

Submitters of certain viewpoints not only are not seen by the front page, but their submissions, as well as their comments are “buried,” sent to Digg Hell by other submitters who don’t feel that everyone has the right to be heard, another contradiction of basic democracy; Digg is its own Gestapo, mockingly called by some as the “bury brigade.”

In fact, I wouldn’t even bother submitting a story to Digg unless it meets one of the following criteria:

- Praises Ron Paul
- Praises Barack Obama
- Criticizes Hillary Clinton
- Criticizes George W Bush
- Criticizes John McCain
- Criticizes or Praises Apple (depending on what day it is)
- Praises Net Neutrality
- Criticizes Comcast
- Praises The Pirate Bay
- Involves Video Games
- Has “Impeach” and “Bush” in the submission headline
- Involves Health, Fitness, or Nutrition
- Criticizes Fox News (eh, well, who doesn’t)
- Be From Cracked (Stolen From http://www.cracked.com/blog/2008/07/16/digg-this-7-cheats-for-hitting-the-front-page-of-digg/ – I highly recommend you read this, as it came out the same time I was writing this post)

If your post has anything else in it, you won’t see it on the front page.  Ever.  Don’t even try.

2.  Comments are Squashed

And unfortunately, the right to the voice is even further complicated in the Digg discussions, where individual comments can be “Dugg” or buried.  Again, here, the amazing capacity of groupthink squashes those who do not follow the majority.  To prove my point, I present a challenge: open any submission on the front page of Digg, and look at the top comments.  They will be in complete agreement with the submission.  Now look at the buried comments.

In this, Digg is not a democracy, but an anarcho-regime.  It’s the Digg way or the highway.  Get in line or get out, and don’t dare question the “Digg integrity.”  You can digg, or vote, all you want, as long as you’re voting for the right submission.

Digg is simply too large of a community for the level of moderation it has, Dunbar would argue, and I would agree.  It’s gone deep into mob mentality territory, and I guarantee the content of the site will continue to decline unless the site changes the way it is managed.  It can be done effectively, and moderation need not undermine Democracy.  I hope Kevin Rose reads this.

1: Submissions Should Be Screened

Digg needs a committee of moderators, and a clear administration system.  Headlines can be screened to match the content of their articles.  It creates more work for the site, yes.  Tough nuggets; I have little sympathy for people who probably don’t need to do terribly much to keep Digg running on a day-to-day basis.  An algorithm could help.

If someone’s submission is screened out of the queue, that user, the submission, and a listing of why they were refused should be publicly available.  If SomethingAwful can do it, so can Digg.

2. Repeat Articles Should Be Pulled

That means you, Ron Paul.  Having repeat articles (it happens more than it should) prevents other users from getting their new content up.

3. Overhaul the Comment System

Comments should not be dugg upwards or buried downwards, they should list in the order that they are posted.  Period.  Comments should still be able to be dugg or buried, but it should not affect the order of the comment.  If a comment is inappropriate, it can be flagged, screened, and erased.

There is a preference you can change that does this.  My bad.  Yay Digg!  Thanks Edwin.

4. Control Groupthink

List the top 10 buried submissions on the front page, right next to the top 10 most dugg (digged, whatever).

I read Fark because everyone can submit an article to Fark, the articles are screened, the good ones go up after being reviewed by their moderators, and everyone can make comments.  It’s not tech news, no, but if I want tech, I can go to Slashdot, and they follow a similar process.  And here’s a bonus: Fark and Slashdot don’t tout themselves as social networking websites, which they are not.  Neither is Digg.  There’s nothing “magical” about it.  Everyone has a shot, everyone has a say, and the content on Fark hasn’t dropped an ounce in the past 6 years, despite the crappy Photoshop contests.

PS DIGG THIS BLOG POST LOL