The fact that they named themselves the Digg Patriots should be funny to anyone who's played Metal Gear Solid 2.
Extremist group tries to game Digg
51–60 of 127 posts
Re: Extremist group tries to game Digg
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they cancel each other out. Digg has an extremely conservative bias. Half the stories on the front page are basically "Global Warming Is A Hoax Because Jesus Wouldn't Let That Happen"
Yeah as a user since 2007, it went noticeably conservative in the last year or so (which is when many of us moved to Reddit). And it's not just conservative leaning but really pointed partisan stuff. I hope they can figure out a way to solve this sort of thing going forward. And I'm curious if their choice of either digg/bury instead of upvote/downvote makes it easier to game. I believe it does, as these folks haven'…
People tend to self-segregate in real life. It makes sense that it should happen on the Internet, too.
Re: Extremist group tries to game Digg
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah as a user since 2007, it went noticeably conservative in the last year or so (which is when many of us moved to Reddit). And it's not just conservative leaning but really pointed partisan stuff. I hope they can figure out a way to solve this sort of thing going forward. And I'm curious if their choice of either digg/bury instead of upvote/downvote makes it easier to game. I believe it does, as these folks haven'…
People tend to self-segregate in real life. It makes sense that it should happen on the Internet, too.
Agreed, but I think this is a little beyond self-segration.
If they just wanted to self-segregate, they'd find stories they agree with and digg them up, but extending that to also ruin other people's discussion is another thing. They are gathering with the explicit goal of drowning out other voices outside of their self-segregated group.
Perhaps another reason reddit isn't as susceptible is that it allows for user-created subreddits where like-minded folks can form such hives.
Re: Extremist group tries to game Digg
#54How much you want to bet this isn't just another part of the 'game', an example of the left-wing extremists attempting to combat the right-wing extremists?
Re: Extremist group tries to game Digg
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bit about American media shilling for the left is quite a funny troll. Admittedly I might be wrong as I don't live in that country, but American media and politics seems to consist of the right and the further right.
As a Canadian living in the US I'm constantly amused at the left/right divide here. Left wing politics in this country would, in any other western nation, be considered centrist (if not a little to the right), and right-wing politics here would be fairly extreme right in most other places.
The right-wing is well-entrenched, so 'progressive' is not always that progressive. You have to give up a little ground to avoid looking psycho.
Re: Extremist group tries to game Digg
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
People tend to self-segregate in real life. It makes sense that it should happen on the Internet, too.
Agreed, but I think this is a little beyond self-segration. If they just wanted to self-segregate, they'd find stories they agree with and digg them up, but extending that to also ruin other people's discussion is another thing. They are gathering with the explicit goal of drowning out other voices outside of their self-segregated group. Perhaps another reason reddit isn't as susceptible is that it allows for user-cr…
[deleted]
Re: Extremist group tries to game Digg
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can see all the Google shills came out to downvote me, but nobody bothered to refute my comment on the grounds. No surprises there.
For those who didn't bother to look: http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/04/20/goog... And here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/05/is_leftleaning_google...
I'm not going to say anything about how dubious your sources are, but I will address a couple things:
1) Blogs are not inherently "news". Ergo, they should not always be put into a news feed.
2) The blogs in question were removed because of objectionable content. Which, after reading a couple of articles on one of the sites mentioned, seems totally reasonable. The reason it's OK to remove these from the Google News feed is because it's not news. It's a few paranoid people talking about how dangerous RADICAL ISLAM is.
This is not a "liberal bias". This is an attempt to have a news feed that contains news. Not libel. Not hate speech.
Re: Extremist group tries to game Digg
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may be certain, but so far a year long undercover investigation has yet to prove there is an elite cabal of liberals desperately manipulating information in an attempt to skew towards their viewpoint. Or, perhaps, the feeling that conservative content is underrepresented is because of something more benign -- maybe more liberals visit Digg than conservatives?
A yearlong investigation to uncover a voting ring on Digg isn't impressive, it's bloody incompetence . It shouldn't have taken more than a week, if that. I left Digg, gosh, three, four years ago now, because it was pretty obvious even then that Digg was basically just a collection of voting cabals of various levels of interconnectedness. People were writing articles about it and stuff. People were writing how-to arti…
Nah, the "mainstream media" won't report the liberals doing it. ;)
I think this would be the most interesting problem a social media site would have to solve once it got traction.
Re: Extremist group tries to game Digg
#59What they fail to understand is that there was never a conspiracy to censor their content, it was the greater Digg community that did that because their articles are usually unprofessional, fact-challenged fantasies that nobody wants to read. They should probably have asked a conservative. It's hard to tell whether these folks were submitting quality stories with a different slant, or were actively submitting crap. O…
> It's hard to tell whether these folks were submitting quality stories with a different slant, or were actively submitting crap.
If I may quote from the article quoting the conspiracy's users about the submissions of 'these folks'
> "If any of the usual suspects subbed a story claiming “sky blue/water wet,” I’d BURY IT without question. I’ve been on digg for almost 4 years… > -JeremiahLaments (account says Joined Digg on 21Aug2009)"
> "I personally vote for a complete blackout on lib subs: Bury every comment (including the conservatives “helping” to pop the story). No up-votes (no matter how much you agree). > -asami21"
> "Whether I agree with Bjornski, Anamaly100, PhilPerspective, Novenator, JanineWallace, UncaJoe, & a couple others I can’t think of right now, I bury `em anyway. ACTUALLY each of them has been “dead-on, balls-accurate” (an industry term) at least once in the past week or so, and it sort-of pains me to be dishonest by burying them anyway, but then I remember . . . I’m not up for re-election! > -BentheDog"
Re: Extremist group tries to game Digg
#60Are they different from Slashdot moderators?