My guess is that many of you have already seen this Digg post where Jason Calacanis claims that top diggers are being paid by a PR firm. I’m putting $50 on the table for the first person who can give me a good reason why they feel this is so wrong. As a PR guy, I want to hear people’s thoughts. This is $50 we’re talking about here, so it better be good. I’m the final judge.
Now for the fun . . .
Digg says “Reported by diggers as possibly inaccurate,” which is, well, completely outside any stance of credibility since Digg users can’t have their system being questioned.
Seth Godin pointed out last week how easy it is to game Digg.
I said Digg had some serious weaknesses.
Josh Steimle pointed out how easy it is to game Digg.
And now, Calacanis is pointing out fishy behavior by Digg posters and offering to pay people to rat out those gaming the system for pay.
Here are my thoughts
Digg is fine. The system is fine. The problem is that Digg believes that it’s a social media site, and has never been a social media site. Social media is a lie because it suggests the idea that the platform creates equality and it does the complete opposite. The minute control is given to the people, self-interest comes into play and “equality” disappears. When the Digg team (or anyone for that matter) actually believes that Digg creates some sort of equal platform for people to offer their opinions on news they are sorely mistaken. The goal of equality will fail everytime because despite what people say, nobody wants to be equal.
At the end of the day, I think anybody familiar with promotion would go “duh, of course PR firms are paying people to post to Digg.” $50 to the first person to give me a good reason why they feel it is wrong.
5 comments ↓
In Econ 110 at BYU, Professor Kearl mentioned (to our surprise) that when companies give money to politicians, it often creates market efficiencies! Likewise, if anyone can buy their way to the top of Digg, maybe it’s *more* fair than agenda-driven mainstream media to which the common man has no access!
But, even as you pointed out . . . What is \”more\” fair or \”less\” fair? What is fair? Who decides ultimately what is fair and what isn\’t? If this person or organiztion or group exists, where did they get the power to decide what is fair and what isn\’t? What if I don\’t agree with them? Do they have more right to decide than me?
Digg is a private business, which in my mind means they have the right to decide what is okay and what isn\’t, and that means \”fair\” means nothing unless Digg says so. it\’s their platform not ours. We contribute, but it still isn\’t ours. What Digg says is kosher is kosher and what Digg says isn\’t kosher isn\’t kosher.
I’d like to see Blake Snow weigh in on this.
I agree that any attempt to make Digg users equal will fail. Just like in the real world even though everyone has a vote not everyone wields the same amount of power. Some user have greater influence that effects the way others vote, which in turn creates inequality. I don’t think social media is about giving everyone an equal voice. It is just about giving everyone a voice, and it is up to the individuals how far their voices carry.
Leave a Comment