Going in order then:
Earth wrote:
...what? How is that a reasonable comparison to this? Digg made a change, the users of Digg didn't like it, and the users of Digg left. Calling it a rebellion akin to the American Revolution is not only ludicrous, but also entirely irrelevant.
The users didn't like it because they didn't understand. Digg didn't do an adequate job of marketing this change to them. It's similar to the American Revolution because both were knee jerk reactions that could've been dealt with in a more diplomatic way.
Earth wrote:
So what were your thoughts on the "Original Digg"?
Similar to Reddit currently. I liked the technology area since at the time it was relatively free of online activism and its interests paralleled mine. When it comes down to it though they had the same problems. They're both the same sort of online discussion forum. I only used Digg back then because it was new and interesting. If Reddit had come along first that probably would've been what I would have used. Reid, you didn't know me back then but I was ecstatic when Digg v4 came out. I was the only one I knew who actually liked the **** thing! So in a way I was happy to see that change over. I just think the transition could've been made better and some more concessions made after the fact to calm the community if anything. This is all very similar to the whole introduction of EoC and this years introduction of Legacy Mode on RS.
Earth wrote:
Oh yes, "The Fappening". So what you're saying is that, without the existence of Reddit, it would be impossible for this to happen?
No, not at all. It would still happen, it happens. I just think that website owners, especially those who are prominent have a duty to follow a moral code.
Earth wrote:
When did the internet ever claim to be family-friendly?
See last response. It was just a blanket thing laid down by the CEO to show that he really didn't care about what (if any) moral objections would come to his website. That's a website that I can not use in good conscience.
Earth wrote:
/r/politics is a joke on Reddit too; it's full of trolls. Using /r/politics as a bellwether for Reddit as a whole would be akin to using The Sandbox as a gauge of RSBandB as a whole. It exists, sure. But it's not what it's about.
It used to be front featured. It served as an example to illustrate the previous points that the higher ups at Reddit for a long time really didn't care about what was being posted on their website. I commend them for removing it from the front. Just like the Sandbox is only available to registered members.
Earth wrote:
What are you trying to promote, though?
Take for example in the 2012 election campaign. i'm fairly certain that if a story that had relevant questions on the Benghazi attacks appeared it would not become popular. Or a more recent example, if something playing devil's advocate for Edward Snowden appeared, would that get promoted? The point is that in a certain topic it just feels that fringe stories that make decent and viable arguments are too easily pushed aside.
Earth wrote:
What, exactly, will be smaller?
The pool of people who will be exposed to what you post.
Earth wrote:
And these editors put an article titled, and I quote, "Fleshlight made an iPad Case That You Can Put Your ***** Into".
I am grateful that you tweeted that to Mr. Young. This is kinda touched on later in terms of biases. There's no perfect solution and I was really quite disgusted with Digg after seeing that story. I actually gave them a two week break after that. The only thing that brought me back was their introduction of Digg Deeper which scrapes Twitter feeds for links.
Earth wrote:
So does Reddit...
But, what about local? [snip]
Never said they didn't.
At the end of the day I feel Reddit is limiting freedom through their form of news simply because it's too easily to silence a group that is not agreed with. These groups are then forced to found their own communities where things can be discussed which is fine. But where's the fun in that? If you're discussing something with a group of people that all agree that's boring, that's consensus. All I want is for fringe stories to be seen and have the chance to be receive a large quantity of upvotes maybe 15-20% of the time.
And no, r/politics is not the sum of Reddit. That is not what I am trying to say. In hindsight perhaps it was a bad idea to include that comparison. The idea I had is simple and goes like this:
1. Reddit has large and vast sub-reddits that are tailored to general interests. This means that fringe viewpoints are unlikely to receive a large amount of upvotes and get promoted to the front page of a 24 hour view.
2. Reddit has smaller sub-reddits which are good for those specific communities. I have no doubt that there are novel discussions that do take place in these areas.
3. With smaller sub-reddits you are discussing posted items with people who are more likely than not to agree with you, this begs the question, what's the point?
All in all I would like a solution to this problem whether it be social impulses or something else. What's to say there can't be a view on Reddit that aggregates popular discussions from these lesser known areas and brings them to the surface? That is what I want people to take away from this.
PS: Still, even today I have problems with old Digg.