The Ugly Side of Digg
A recent post on Digg re-confirms what we've already discussed before: If you want to go to sleep at night feeling good about the world and humanity at large, don't read Digg comments.
I saw this post on Digg the other day, and while the actual link, which shows an Asian woman fellating a statue, is inappropriate to begin with, the first comment I saw was even more troubling:
As of this writing, the post has over 3,000 Diggs, and the comment has over 900 diggs. Nine hundred diggs. That's over nine hundred Digg users that saw this comment, which plays on racist Asian stereotypes, and thought, "Hey, what a clever, amusing, and/or accurate remark."
Some of the smartest people in the country read and use Digg. Digg users are programmers and top bloggers. They are entrepreneurs and businessmen. But it's also no secret that Digg users are primarily male. As such, a significant portion of them subscribe to a Caucasian male-centric, fratboy-esque culture, manifested through Digg's comments and submissions. In Digg society, it's okay to point and laugh at cultures, races, and individual people. It's okay to verbally humiliate people for being blind or to gawk at a little girl for resembling a deceased comedian.
Because of the anonymity that Digg (and the internet affords), people are allowed to say stupid things. Things that would get you fired it you said them at your job. Things that would make your parents disappointed in you, if they knew about them. Things that would basically exclude you from being able to be characterized as a decent human being. On Digg, these impulses are intensified because these comments are rewarded with diggs; sometimes, as in this case, they are rewarded with a massive number of diggs.
So what's the conclusion? If you are using Digg to drive traffic, know your audience. And don't complain when a lot of that traffic isn't made up of the high-minded, sophisticated crowd you were hoping for.
Enjoy the post? Here are some more that may interest you.
Trackbacks (0)
There are no trackbacks for this post yet.
Reader Comments (9)
- ANP, September 14, 2007
-
ARGH! Yet again proving that anonymous democracy doesn't work.
Since social media is, as Conn Fishburn described, a "conversation that happens among relative peers," social media platform providers must remember a key differentiator of web 2.0 from 1.0: an improvement to the problem of democracy. The democratic web is one where any yokel with an Internet connection can post and respond to anything. It's flat, it's accessible, and it's as easy as 1-2-3 to receive filthy emails in response to an innocuous Craigslist ad trying to sell a used bicycle. The democratic web makes it possible for anyone to connect with anyone, without accountability, and with anonymity. Turns out? Web-mediated democracy's a mite yucky. But as SMP members create their own network of friends, not only are they insulating themselves from the pesky problem of "We're all anonymous and irresponsible friends here", but they're also creating built-in psychographic and demographic buckets. As I'll discuss further in the next section, a social network that can take advantage of user-created sub-audiences will help advertisers deliver an exceptional experience, as they can reach the masses with a primary message and build niche messages or micro-sites for the more "sophisticated" users.
From my longer white paper; section in question at
- littleoslo, September 14, 2007
-
digg is just like youtube when it comes to comments with many racism and hate. usually skipping it asap
- Wolf, September 14, 2007
-
C'mon, we all make jokes. They might be not your kind of jokes, but they're still what they are: just jokes.
- Peter, September 14, 2007
-
What I find amusing is that the comments that are dugg up all tend to lean to the same side of an issue, while if you expand the comments that have been dug down, they seem to represent the opposite side of the argument, regardless of which side is the more rational. I think that this exposes the fact that the digg constituency has a degree of influence that is disproportionate to their actual representative sample of the population. If the irrational, biased, or prejudiced comments were all dug down with equity regardless of the side they take on an issue, then we would see some objectivity from the digg community. Unfortunately, my own admittedly anecdotal experience on digg proves otherwise, that those who post and comment regularly seem to all share mostly the same biases.
- moojj, September 14, 2007
-
Nice to see you following my stories David :)
- Tad Chef, September 15, 2007
-
Digg collects the lowest common denominator. I said it before and I say it again. Also the same people who hate SEO, hate minorities based on race, nationality or sex. Just watch the comments of any blog that gets dugg, people bash the bloggers just for fun.
- Adnan, September 16, 2007
-
Yeah you're right. Most of the Diggers don't watch out for what they say, mainly because their comments are anonymous.
Unfortunately, Diggers also seem to hate anything with the word "Blog" in it.
- webcure, September 17, 2007
-
David, This is an important post about an issue that seems painful to you, and is painful to me as well. Racism and hate. I think the only thing to do is 'Grin and Bear it' and keep on commenting like a madman if you need to in order to fight back. In life you have to stand up for what you believe in, and be able to discuss and convince accordingly. Keep on writing good relevant articles, and try to avoid getting dragged down to the intellectual level of some of the hate diggers. Keep your cool man, and rock on!
- Igor Polyakov, September 17, 2007
-
Thank you for this article, it was a pain to read these stories, especially about that blind lawyer. They reminded me discussions of species from the Internet plankton in Russia, there similar opinions and attitudes raving on the daily basis, and such lack of culture is really distracting me, so, being Russian-speaking, I rarely visit runet anymore. Sad to see similar things in Eastern society, I see the causes of this phenomena in low level of education.
