4 ms·

The Digg story just goes to show you that political metaphors don't always translate well into tech. Digg was never able to diversify content (read: expand, sca

The Digg story just goes to show you that political metaphors don't always translate well into tech. Digg was never able to diversify content (read: expand, scale, grow) because it was never worth it for minority voices--and here I'm referring to non-liberal, non-young, non-male, non-athiest users--to attempt to carve out space and participate. The value proposition of helping diversify Digg's content wasn't worth the time to newcomers. And so those users of other demographics simply went elsewhere to build their communities. The latest Digg was an attempt to push back against the niche that ruled Digg, but then that niche just found another community as well. Real life democracies, in government, exist as a compromise simply because there isn't always the ability to pick up and move to a new nation state if you aren't happy with the local rules. On the web it's all too easy to move somewhere else, so typically all web communities are niches that push away newcomers who are different. On the web democracy does not give rise to real, long-tail diversity; it's just a quality filter.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
On the web democracy does not give rise to real, long-tail diversity; it's just a quality filter. I agree with your entire comment. I'd just add the word "currently" before the sentence indicated. Just because it's that way now does not mean it always has to be that way. The web is either going to figure out the problem of dynamically changing due to minority opinion or we're going to have a tremendously huge social problem on our hands in a few decades.
- hugh3 16y ago
  The web is either going to figure out the problem of dynamically changing due to minority opinion or we're going to have a tremendously huge social problem on our hands in a few decades. I really don't understand what you're getting at there. Can you clarify?
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    Social systems run on herd mentality. It's that way here on HN, it's that way everywhere you have some kind of voting system (currently) The problem is very simple: the crowd is often wrong, uniformed, mistaken, prejudiced, emotionally irrational, or misled. Democracies work by giving voice to the minority. The black preacher standing on the corner in 1960 telling the majority whites that Jim Crow laws had to go? He was protected. He was able to work with the majority to promote his opinion and change things. But nobody liked him. At least at first. At least not in the majority. He was considered in the same category as those calling for the immediate liberation of farm animals -- somebody with a strange and odd opinion that would never work in modern society. Perhaps he was a bit of a nut. Minority opinions are frequently wrong, no doubt. And there are lots of weird and crazy people out there. But for a social system to function, people of strange and perhaps offensive opinions must be able to persuade others of their cause. It's the entire basis for change. If this is not replicated on the web, what will happen -- what already is happening -- is that the software will manage to split people into tinier and tinier groups of total conformity. The naive might think this is a good thing: no more trolls to ruin the conversation/group. But actually it's the worst thing imaginable: no more minority/strange opinions persuading others that change is needed. In civic life I can stand on the street corner and talk to passerbys. On the web, if I'm shut out, I'm shut out. There is no voice (or rather, everyone can speak as freely as they like, they are just never heard. Same difference) This change-by-minority-persuasion is a critical part of healthy systems. Without it? I'm not a fortune-teller, but it's not going to be pretty.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      I think you're overestimating the importance of the internet in political discussions. Only a tiny minority of the population discuss politics or read political discussions on the internet, and most of these folks are the ones who are already hard set in their opinions. The internet is changing politics in many ways, not all of them good, but I really don't think that getting less exposure to crazy opinions is one of them.
      - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
        You hvae a fair critique, mostly amounting to "Nothing to see here, please move along" And I'll grant you that we -- this community -- are the leaders in integrating technology into our lives. Most other folks are not as hooked up as we are (although that is quickly changing) But my point was about social systems, not just political ones. Sure, I used the example of Jim Crow laws and politics because it was so easy to understand, but the same argument can be made for any social system, from 3 people to 3 million. I'm not trying to make a political point. I'm trying to make a point about sociology. Take politics out. Change the subject to distributed systems versus hub-and-spoke systems. Same difference. Or the use of SQL-less databases. Or the best patterns for testing. Politics is just used as an example. It's really not the thrust of my comment. Politics is a nice metaphor for describing how groups of people operate. Everybody can agree that Jim Crow laws were bad. We're still fighting some of these other issues, and I didn't think it was useful to bring them up.
jdp23 16y ago
it's an excellent point on digg's challenges diversifying. the sexism was a huge barrier to attracting and keeping more diverse participation. i'm not sure i saw digg's failure is a general indictment of democracy, though :-)
- hugh3 16y ago
  I didn't mind the sexism, but did mind the leftism. Another person might not mind the sexism or the leftism but might be turned off by the geekiness. Digg merely managed to box itself into a small demographic (young male leftist atheist geeks), such that anyone who wasn't in that demographic would take a quick look, get turned off, and go elsewhere. It's not a general indictment of democracy, but it does prove that there can never be such a thing as a general-interest social news site. The future is nichey.
  - htsh 16y ago
    I thought Digg had it's fair share of right-of-center and Libertarian content, especially in the last couple of years. It was considerably more often that I'd find a conservative article on the front page of Digg than I would on Reddit's /r/politics.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      Perhaps. I haven't really checked it much in the last few years. And that's the other problem -- if somebody goes there once and looks around and doesn't find anything they like on the front page then they're probably not going to come back.
    - wyclif 16y ago
      Just a non-scientific observation, but my impression was that Reddit had more libertarians than Digg.
michaelchisari 16y ago
Which is why reddit's use of user created and managed sub-communities (ie, subreddits) is such a brilliant way to pre-emptively deal with this before it happens.
- markkat 16y ago
  This is very true. I would have left Reddit long ago if it weren't for the subReddits. I can still find the site/community that I love at Reddit.com.
- siglesias 16y ago
  Agreed. I think the lesson is that the service must provide functionality for sub-groups or tribes and not attempt to be a catchall, as Digg tried to do.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

On the web democracy does not give rise to real, long-tail diversity; it's just a quality filter. I agree with your entire comment. I'd just add the word "currently" before the sentence indicated. Just because it's that way now does not mean it always has to be that way. The web is either going to figure out the problem of dynamically changing due to minority opinion or we're going to have a tremendously huge social problem on our hands in a few decades.

hugh3 16y ago
The web is either going to figure out the problem of dynamically changing due to minority opinion or we're going to have a tremendously huge social problem on our hands in a few decades. I really don't understand what you're getting at there. Can you clarify?
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  Social systems run on herd mentality. It's that way here on HN, it's that way everywhere you have some kind of voting system (currently) The problem is very simple: the crowd is often wrong, uniformed, mistaken, prejudiced, emotionally irrational, or misled. Democracies work by giving voice to the minority. The black preacher standing on the corner in 1960 telling the majority whites that Jim Crow laws had to go? He was protected. He was able to work with the majority to promote his opinion and change things. But nobody liked him. At least at first. At least not in the majority. He was considered in the same category as those calling for the immediate liberation of farm animals -- somebody with a strange and odd opinion that would never work in modern society. Perhaps he was a bit of a nut. Minority opinions are frequently wrong, no doubt. And there are lots of weird and crazy people out there. But for a social system to function, people of strange and perhaps offensive opinions must be able to persuade others of their cause. It's the entire basis for change. If this is not replicated on the web, what will happen -- what already is happening -- is that the software will manage to split people into tinier and tinier groups of total conformity. The naive might think this is a good thing: no more trolls to ruin the conversation/group. But actually it's the worst thing imaginable: no more minority/strange opinions persuading others that change is needed. In civic life I can stand on the street corner and talk to passerbys. On the web, if I'm shut out, I'm shut out. There is no voice (or rather, everyone can speak as freely as they like, they are just never heard. Same difference) This change-by-minority-persuasion is a critical part of healthy systems. Without it? I'm not a fortune-teller, but it's not going to be pretty.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    I think you're overestimating the importance of the internet in political discussions. Only a tiny minority of the population discuss politics or read political discussions on the internet, and most of these folks are the ones who are already hard set in their opinions. The internet is changing politics in many ways, not all of them good, but I really don't think that getting less exposure to crazy opinions is one of them.
    - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
      You hvae a fair critique, mostly amounting to "Nothing to see here, please move along" And I'll grant you that we -- this community -- are the leaders in integrating technology into our lives. Most other folks are not as hooked up as we are (although that is quickly changing) But my point was about social systems, not just political ones. Sure, I used the example of Jim Crow laws and politics because it was so easy to understand, but the same argument can be made for any social system, from 3 people to 3 million. I'm not trying to make a political point. I'm trying to make a point about sociology. Take politics out. Change the subject to distributed systems versus hub-and-spoke systems. Same difference. Or the use of SQL-less databases. Or the best patterns for testing. Politics is just used as an example. It's really not the thrust of my comment. Politics is a nice metaphor for describing how groups of people operate. Everybody can agree that Jim Crow laws were bad. We're still fighting some of these other issues, and I didn't think it was useful to bring them up.

jdp23 16y ago

it's an excellent point on digg's challenges diversifying. the sexism was a huge barrier to attracting and keeping more diverse participation. i'm not sure i saw digg's failure is a general indictment of democracy, though :-)

hugh3 16y ago
I didn't mind the sexism, but did mind the leftism. Another person might not mind the sexism or the leftism but might be turned off by the geekiness. Digg merely managed to box itself into a small demographic (young male leftist atheist geeks), such that anyone who wasn't in that demographic would take a quick look, get turned off, and go elsewhere. It's not a general indictment of democracy, but it does prove that there can never be such a thing as a general-interest social news site. The future is nichey.
- htsh 16y ago
  I thought Digg had it's fair share of right-of-center and Libertarian content, especially in the last couple of years. It was considerably more often that I'd find a conservative article on the front page of Digg than I would on Reddit's /r/politics.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Perhaps. I haven't really checked it much in the last few years. And that's the other problem -- if somebody goes there once and looks around and doesn't find anything they like on the front page then they're probably not going to come back.
  - wyclif 16y ago
    Just a non-scientific observation, but my impression was that Reddit had more libertarians than Digg.

michaelchisari 16y ago

Which is why reddit's use of user created and managed sub-communities (ie, subreddits) is such a brilliant way to pre-emptively deal with this before it happens.

markkat 16y ago
This is very true. I would have left Reddit long ago if it weren't for the subReddits. I can still find the site/community that I love at Reddit.com.
siglesias 16y ago
Agreed. I think the lesson is that the service must provide functionality for sub-groups or tribes and not attempt to be a catchall, as Digg tried to do.