steve kwan user experience designer

Digg and the problem with mob mentality

(May 4th, 2007 - 12:47PM)

As the entire Internet seems to know, on May 1st Digg suffered a total implosion when its administrators attempted to censor stories about the HD-DVD key being leaked. In theory, the HD-DVD key can be used to circumvent copy protection measures on HD-DVDs. When Digg received a cease and desist order, they opted to remove all stories containing the HD-DVD key from their site.

Digg's user base lashed back by spamming the front page with stories about the key and burying all other stories, rendering Digg.com entirely useless. The fiasco finally settled down when Kevin Rose, founder of Digg, bowed to the pressure and agreed not to censor the key anymore.

Digg is a user-generated news site, meaning that readers choose which stories make it to the front page and which are considered irrelevant. The problem with user-driven sites is that in extreme cases like this, the "community" can act in ways that are contrary to the best interests of the site. In this case, Digg's community may have landed Kevin Rose in a lot of legal trouble.

The Digg implosion is a perfect example of what's wrong with Web 2.0 and user-generated content.

The premise behind sites like Digg is that there is wisdom in the crowd, and if you let the masses dictate content for you, you'll wind up with top content. Unfortunately, the crowd is not smart. The intelligence of a mob is less than the sum of the intelligence of all of its members. We've known that for thousands of years; that's why we have authorities for our knowledge, such as newspapers, archives, and libraries. Criticize these great institutions all you want, but the fact of the matter is that they have standards for the quality of their information.

Digg isn't a reputable news source. It's an online mob. The Digg "community" is biased, immature, and as we now know, self-destructive. They claim that they spammed the HD-DVD key on Digg because "censorship is bad" and they're "fighting for free speech." They claim that the HD-DVD key is just a number, and nobody has the right to own or protect a number. But as many of Digg's more astute commenters have said, these "freedom fighters" would surely be singing a different tune if the numbers being "liberated" were their credit card numbers.

When Digg's users revolted, they weren't protecting free speech. They were bandwagon jumping. If you read some of the comments that Diggers have posted on this issue, you'll see that they've inflated their egos dramatically. Here's a quote that someone posted on Digg:

"The digital fucking Boston tea party and I was there to see it happen. You guys know that in 50 years people will be studying this shit in school? Goddamn. It'll be interesting to see how they rebel then (of course, we'll be dead then)."

This was posted by someone known only as "thethresh." Isn't it funny how easy it is to be courageous when you're anonymous?

Digg's May 1st implosion wasn't about free speech; free speech has limitations. It wasn't about democracy; democracy has laws. It was about propping up egos at the expense of Kevin Rose, and trying to get something for free when we should be paying for it.

This, of course, is all irrelevant, because Digg isn't a news institution. It's just a website, and websites come and go. Digg will be long forgotten in a few years. But if we learn one thing out of this "rebellion," it should be that user-generated content is not a replacement for solid, authoritative knowledge. A mob of a thousand is not as good as a single, authoritative expert.

Sorry Digg, but I'll stick with the real news sources.