Digg: Home of the rightwing nutjobs!
As a fully fledged nerd and one who spends much time on the internet (for work, I promise you) I have developed a deep affinity for the social news aggregator Digg. It was the darling child of Web 2.0, and it was great to see once-Tech TV-personality Kevin Rose hit the big time. It represented the introduction of the internet as the next step in media distribution – from news to videos.
But Digg has taken a serious downturn in recent months, totally unrelated to the sickening decisions that have to do with the Digg algorithms.
The internet is not a safe place for liberals; that should have been my first clue. Sadly, something inside me looks for the best, despite the fact that I’m not what you would call the world’s “sunniest person.” So it took me awhile to realize that Digg has evolved in to nothing more than a giant communal gathering of rightwing nutjobs.
This is exemplified most vividly in a recent Digg submission entitled “Bush gives away Alaska forest.” As of writing this article, the submission has received 650 comments and 2732 Digg’s. One needs only look 5 comments down to see the beginning of what I label as proof of the rightwing moronacy that is clogging up the tubes.
First of all, and most sickeningly, is the fact that the story is being buried as inaccurate. Now Digg rightfully so implemented the ability to label a story inaccurate, but this is now being abused by the majority. The article in fact is not inaccurate in any sense of the word; the facts given are truthful, the quotes not out of context.
So why has it been labeled inaccurate?
Because the Diggers who believe their opinion more important than the truth have taken a dislike to the authors - Jeremy Elton Jacquot – tone. To save you the time, his tone can be summed up quite effectively by his opening salvo;
Any (admittedly dim) hopes that President Bush might choose to salvage his tattered - some might say non-existent - environmental credentials were dashed when his administration announced plans to open more than 3 million acres of Alaskan forests to logging, mining and road building.
He rightfully continues in roasting – albeit on a low temperature – Bush’s decision to carve out a part of the Tongass National Forest for commercial use; ie, logging, tourism, etc.
I will grant that there are a sizable amount of Digg’s, and several comments that give me some hope, but all in all, the Bush-crazy wacko’s that inhabit the internet, and Digg in specific, give us further proof that humanity is going to hell in a handbasket.
I made the mistake of reading through about half the comments (before I had to go throw up) and was seriously shocked over the naivety and imperialistic tone of many of the comments. The problem is, that these people who seemingly have no grasp of the reality of the situation are literally affecting the spread of important news.
I’ll take you on a quick walk through some of the more moronic and idiotic commenter’s that made their presence known.
TheTaoOfBill starts the idiocy by stating;
Seriously I applaude Bush for this. It’s one step close to drilling in Alaska. You tree huggers are always telling us to end the war. Then you freak out when we try to become oil independent because it might make polar bears cry. Seriously get over yourselfs and welcome to the real world. Polar bears have plenty of places to live. Placing a few oil rigs in Alaska isn’t going to kill them off. Or any other endangered species in Alaska.
He ends his first comment (trust me, there are plenty more) by so incorrectly attacking us (us being environmentalists) that it makes you laugh out loud; “Or would you rather us bomb Venezuela and take over their rain forest instead.”
Yes, Yes Tao I would rather we bomb Venezuela.
But it get’s exponentially worse, with TheTaoOfBill almost immediately shaping the argument to follow for the next few hundred comments or so;
I put people in front of the environment. And right now people are going through this winter without heat because they can’t afford their gas bills. Right now people have trouble finding jobs because they can’t drive very far with gas prices so high. Right now people are being blown up in Iraq because we need our oil. Right now Alaska’s unemployment rate is skyrocketing and this will bring more jobs to Alaska. It will also give us something to export which we literally have next to nothing to export anymore. I care way more for the well being of humans than the well being of a tiny portion of the woods in Alaska compared to the hundreds of millions of Acres of woods in all of Alaska and Canada.
This is just a small portion of the comments that focus on the oil argument, which is surprising considering that the story is about logging. Nevertheless, the normal rhetoric of “America went to Iraq for oil” litters the comments following.
I’ll take a moment though to just state that I do believe America went there for oil. I believe that the humanitarian crisis was real, and may have served as the catalyst for the Iraqi war and subsequent occupation (yes, I’m calling it that), but to say that the prime motivation was anything but oil would be naïve.
In terms of oil though, while yes we are highly dependent on it for much of our everyday lives (as well as coal, but that’s another issue) there needs to be a concerted and more importantly speedy move towards clean energy. Alaska will not provide oil anywhere near enough to relax the pressure, thus waiting it out and dedicating moneys towards green energy would seem more effective.
But moving on and back to our Digg nutters, my favorite – and by favorite I mean worst – soon showed his or her face. Their name is USMarinesTanker;
If you eco freaks knew ANYTHING about relativity when it comes to acres and miles you would understand that “3M acres^2″ is so trivial a sum in the grand scheme of things. Stop screaming that the sky is falling and go harass the Japanese for following a cultural tradition older than most countries of “civilized” Europe.
First of all, the 3.4 million acres involved is not a “trvial sum” considering that it is around a fifth of the total of the Tongass National Forest. Secondly, I think they just excused the Japanese killing of whales for “science research” as a cultural tradition. Surely cultural tradition is no longer a just excuse for anything and everything; should we allow scalping back, or what about stoning someone for adultery?
What is worse however is the naivety that USMarinesTanker seems to exhibit when they refer to the bible as backing for their views;
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” King James Version, Genesis 1:28
sounds lke it was put there for us to use
This was naturally followed by a string of “the bible is fake” comments which, let’s just say are in and of themselves proof of the commenter’s stupidity. USMarinesTanker continues his elitist and imperialistic “humans first” dribble;
Who’s more important, man or animals? Yes, we should take care of them when we can; but they can’t stand in our way. Hell, we’d be living in tree houses like Tarzan and never have gone to the moon, made cell phones, or been able to travel anywhere in any speed. If you want to live like that, go for it. Man is more important than animals. If they suck so much at your leftist, agenda-driven “evolution”, and can’t survive anywhere else but only one patch of forest out of the entire world, well then, my friend, your shitty animal deserves death. It’s survival of the fittest.
Let us just, for a moment, consider the fact that the animal in question – whatever species it may be – can only survive in that one small patch of forest because we wiped out the rest of its habitat!
I’ll leave it there for the moment, in terms of raving lunatic Digg commenter’s, and just point you to the fact that by destroying our forests, we are removing carbon sinks. A carbon sink – for the uninitiated – is a location where carbon is taken in and either stored or converted back in to oxygen. With rising carbon levels – and that is not a myth, that is proven (whether you want to then link it to global warming is another question) – our entire planet will suffer (whether from rising temperatures, or something else. We can’t breathe carbon people!).
I spoke to a couple of Diggers myself, thankfully a long way away from the crazies. First off is my good friend Bukowsky, aka Jeff Flowers (check out his blog here). Regarding the overall hatred the Digg community seems to have for the environmental articles, he says; “I think that most of the ‘conservatives’ or ‘eco-hating hitmen’ on digg basically have the attitude that Al Gore is merely trying to profit off of the ‘myth’ of climate change. Any story ever posted with his name in it, will attract alot of buries and hateful comments. (Which are always fun to read).”
He goes on to add that “For the most part, most people tout the whole “Climate Change is natural, and not proven to be man-made” or “It’s the government’s way of trying to scaremonger and eventually raise taxes” They refuse to look at the science or research behind any eco-friendly article.”
A self-described middle-class Digger, Jeff is a true representation of many of those who are simply not as vocal. My second Digger echoed this point of view.
Muhammad Saleem is ranked as the second highest Digg user, as according to Christopher Finke’s website. He said of the commenter’s from articles such as my example, “They can be irrational, stupid even, and emotional rather than rely on facts, and because they are anonymous they dont feel stupid. That’s what dumbs the conversation down, and often to the point of personal attacks.”
I asked him what he thought of the rightwing influence exhibited on Digg, and he replied that “
I think there is some content manipulation that goes on, but for the most part, I would say its home to left-wing nutjobs more than right-wing.” However he went on to add when I rephrased the question to focus on the environmental stories that “yes definitely” the stories are ruled by the right wing.
Saleem was also found to be one of the Top 10 Green Diggers by The Daily Green, who quoted him as saying that “…those who are interested in green content generally fall into two groups: those trying to get the word out and global warming deniers, who often comment and post aggressively.” He sums up my argument quite well, telling me that “the nutjobs are out in even more force.”
I will leave you with one last comment from Digg that, effectively, shows the reigning attitude on Digg. It is both saddening and frustrating. More than that, as I mentioned earlier, it directly affects the spread of the news. Digg attempts to be a social aggregator of news – allowing the rule of the masses work – but in fact it is the rule of the loudest that rules at Digg.
From Shadow120; “Fuck you, hippies. They’re legally his, therefore he can legally give them away. Deal with it.”
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Josh-
I applaud you on this response to the ignorance on digg.
People are quick to dismiss things they cannot see or realize the beauty of.
weatherholtz
You think Digg is right wing? Holy shit. Digg is plastered stem to stern with moderate-to-far left wing people. Not to mention the fact that just because a person holds beliefs that may lean one way or another doesn’t auto-magically make them less intelligent than you.
But skip the arrogance for a second; your facts are simply inaccurate. The majority of stories that get promoted to the front page hold a left wing point of view, and right-leaning people are the vast minority at Digg.
Simply viewing the front page in any given 12 hour period would prove my contention correct and yours utterly inaccurate.
Buried. ;)
My only thought is that this sort of takes a one sided stance when it comes to politics. You’re going to find a mix of both extremes, no matter where you look. It is the Internet and a large amount of people can access it, even if they really shouldn’t. Just to say that Digg is primarily ‘rightwind nutjobs’ just feels unfair as if there is a yin, there is a yang. Two sides to the coin, if you will. I could be possibly swayed to be defensive or to think differently merely because I have more conservative (old-tyme, not necessarily right aligned) views than most. Experience and personal feelings can greatly affect our views, obviously.
As for the general stupidity of people on the Internet, spot on. The level of separation creates animosity that creates general degradation in conversations resulting in immature, insulting stupidity. Again, no matter where you go… you’ll find some form of stupid. Heh.
Thanks for taking the time to write up the article, even if my views may disagree. [Wouldn’t mind a little warmer weather, damn cold here!]
Anyone who relies solely on Digg for news is an idiot. Also, I hate people who make sweeping generalizations.
The internet is “not a safe place for liberals”?
No offense, but who do you think you’re kidding?
The “internet,” as you call the group of people who use the world wide web, is by and large made up of so called “liberals” like yourself who are at no end to come up with yet another viciously anti-conservative or anti-Christian attention-whore rant. Just because you have personal issues, does not mean you need to vent them on the world.
I’m tired of hearing a certain group of liberals complaining about how they are being shut out of the media whenever somebody even remotely disagrees with them. Wake up: the media is mostly made up of liberals. I think it is time to stop whining like a baby, as it does nothing to enhance your character, knowledge, or intelligence, and go do some real thinking.
I hold the views that I do today because I have _carefully_ and meticulously considered the issues, and not because of what 80-90% of the blogosphere says. Unfortunately, I think that I am in a minority, at least on the internet.
Knock off the pointless opponent-bashing. If you want to have a civilized debate and discussion, feel free to do so. In fact, I encourage it. But this worthless, ridiculous, and one-sided “flame war” needs to stop.
[…] This article made its way before me yesterday from Digg, always a worrisome development. Naturally, as many environmental articles are finding on Digg of late, it received an “inaccuracy” warning. Normally these are placed there for, well, the obvious; for inaccurate stories. But now Diggers are finding that they can bury a story using the authors tone or commentary, if different from their own, as an “inaccuracy.” (For more on what I and others think of the anti-environmentalism on Digg, click here.) […]