"Digg Patriots" Shut Out Liberal Content

Digg logoAn undercover investigation of the popular Web site Digg.com shows a group of conservative users secretly banded together to censor liberal Web content on the site. One of the most popular sites on the Internet, Digg.com works on a simple premise: people submit Web content -- like news stories, videos or images -- for consideration, and Digg subscribers vote them up or down. Stories that get the most votes get promoted to Digg's front page, where millions of visitors see them. With enough "down" votes, an item can get "buried," or removed from the site. This model makes the site susceptible to efforts by certain user groups to push their own articles and viewpoints to the front page and bury content they don't like. The year-long hidden investigation revealed a large, politically conservative group calling themselves the "Digg Patriots," that became so influential that they were able to bury over 90 percent of liberal users' content within 1-3 hours after it was submitted. The group censored thousands of stories, and pushed articles with conservative viewpoints to the front page. Digg Patriot leaders would issue "bury orders" to activate other participants to start voting down stories. Some Digg Patriots had multiple user accounts, in violation of Digg's terms of service. The censorship wasn't restricted to politically-themed articles. Other articles the group targeted dealt with education, renewable energy, homophobia, racism, science, economics, the media or anything "even slightly critical of the GOP/Tea Party/Fox News/corporations are targets."


I think that method is used by a lot of different groups not just the conservatives. Many people with competing websites also use that method. They see a competitor and vote it down. I have several sites and articles that have gotten knocked off by competitors.


marion you are wrong, progressives such as myself love transparency and openness. period. It is the fascists that game that bs. Digg has been a joke for a long time. SU is way superior!

So much for government by inform citizens. Let these censors go live in a not free society instead of a democracy which thrives on free exchange of ideas.

I think marion has it exactly right. It frankly doesn't matter how much openness you like, there are always groups who may or may not be political who make a concerted effort to taint certain news or information related content popularity. I remember that wikipedia banned some guy because he was deleting and editing climate change related content on that site that opposed his view.

All media is biased to some degree regardless of political affiliation. It would be wise to always remember that fact. And whenever a site can be manipulated by the public, it is going to happen.

The anonymous post about saying the progressives like transparency is another example of a baseless response. There are plenty of examples where progressives were far from transparent. One main example would be the Obamacare development where the progressive administration refused to allow conservatives in their closed door meetings. It doesn't matter what your position is about Obamacare, but the process certainly wasn't transparent and open.

KEVIN, dear boy - your statement proves 'anonymous" point.
Your incorrect on multiple counts
1. Obama is progressive - nope, he is right of center and lost the mantle of 'progressive" long ago.
2. Deflection and avoidance - the discussion is not about Obama but you seem to be using the classic tactic of the Digg Patriots as well as the over zealous Righjt Wing (far from "conservative") refusing to deal with the issue - hand caught in the cookie jar again?
3. Liberals are all about transparency - why do you think WE support WikiLeaks, MediaMatters and other sites that hold those in power accountable?
One of the strongest issues of the Left IS accountability and transparency- we have marched and screamed it from the roof tops for decades..We have been demanding BUSH,. CHENEY, et al ,to be held on charges of war crimes just like we now believe Obama owns it now - refusal, to deal with the criminal acts committed in our name makes one complicit to them. (by the way, how does it feel to be a war criminal? We all are now).
So the claim that we aren't about transparency is incorrect but it may just be that you haven't a clue as to what it means to be on the "Left" or "Liberal".

Unfortunately, this country has moved so far neo-con out of willful ignorance, exceptionalist hubris and laziness, that most people can't tell what IS the left- you can't see us from there.