For the most part I am going to leave the Revoltnation blog alone. It was a tool for organizing and the need for organizing around Digg has ceased…for now.
But I can’t keep my mouth shut about this issue that comes up whenever you discuss Digg. Inevitable you hear the same shouting match: Smaller diggers complain that the top diggers are keeping them down and top diggers complain that they have it too damn hard.
The algorithm change the other night was a tipping point for action, but it was not the impetus. Anybody who thinks it’s just a matter of ego’s clashing hasn’t participated in the community enough to realize that there is a serious lack of transparency.
That is and has always been the issue: Transparency.
Regardless of how you feel towards top-diggers (and this has never been an issue of "top diggers versus others" – and anybody who falls into that trap misunderstands the issue) you have to recognize something is important when the New York Times, the paper of record, publishes a story on it.
My only complaint about the story and how the larger community has taken it: The issue at hand is about transparency. Algorithm change, top diggers, cult of personality — all of this falls to the wayside. They are all a distant second.
Transparency is what makes a democracy run well. That is what we want – and it is upon the word of Jay and Kevin that they will provide a mode of communication that this mini-protest got called off.
|
clipped from revoltnation.blogspot.com
Hey Dave,
Transparency: yes, that’s what we need; that’s what this is about. I think only a few of us seem to realize that. Strolling through all the Digg posts and their comments, it’s kinda hard to see that. It’s more like a civil war has started. I made some comments. I lost a few friends off my list; I gained a few more. Other users seem to have experienced the same as well.
Some of us have ulterior motives. Mine is disappointment in both the staff and community of Digg. The staff, because I feel lied to (I know you said to take them on good faith, but I just can’t anymore. I know when I am being lied to), ignored (which we hope to rectify), and disrespected (as was my reaction to Jay Adelson’s comments on the Wired blog).
The [larger] Digg community, because I feel it has yet to realize that a community driven site needs its community to power it. Many don’t seem to understand that in a democracy, their participation is mandatory for it to run well. Digg can only be as strong as its community, not its algorithm. This dispute has obviously weakened it severely.
Back to transparency, I think Digg is going the opposite direction. I recall listening to Kevin on the Drill Down talk about intentions to replace the upcoming queue with a suggested stories mechanism (maybe I misheard, but I’m pretty sure I didn’t). Now, we can’t monitor for possible censorship. I fear that this is what they’re against.
After reading Jay Adelson’s comments on Wired (for reference, it was his use of the words “statistically significant group.” On a site like Digg, where a relatively small portion of the community actively votes on the upcoming stories, he could have chose something better. I felt disgusted), I decided to leave Digg. Not completely, I still plan to leave comments on threads when necessary, browse the pages, and stay in contact with other users. And, when they open that forum (please) up, I plan to be there as well.
I just will not Digg/Bury any further for them. I plan to take the labor/power I was supplying to Digg and give it somewhere else.