Caydel’s SEO Blog

Digg.com is a service used by us all. For some of its users, it is a quick way to promote the news that concerns them . For some, it is a way to promote products. For others, it is a way to quickly achieve a large burst of traffic, if the can make it to the front page.

The best thing about it is, it is free!

But what does that really mean? How can that be interpreted in light of the ‘Open Source/Free Software’ ideal expressed by such organizations as the Free Software Foundation?

‘Free’ as a term can be understood in two ways, each best described in the statement taken from the Free Software Foundation website:

‘Free Software is a matter of liberty not price. To understand this concept, you should think of ‘free’ as in ‘free speech’, and not as in ‘free beer’!”

It can be argued without a doubt that the digg.com service is free in terms of ‘free beer’, in that you pay nothing for the privilege of using the service. But is it free as in ‘free speech’?

Digg allows you to use it’s service, regardless of your motivation. Digg does not really care about your politics, or your religion, or your social and ethical views. You may use the service whoever you are, and you may promote whichever news items you would like to see on the front page. Of course, this is subject to their terms and conditions which generally say, ‘Don’t break the law, and don’t do anything that could get you, or us, sued, or arrested’.

Of course, there have been issues with people using digg to promote their stories using tracking software, and forming groups to mass promote Digg stories of members. This kind of activity has been punished by Digg.

But is it really within the ‘free speech’ methodology to ban users for use which you disagree with? I won’t argue that it was Digg’s right to ban such users. But does it fit with ‘free speech’?

I would argue that it makes sense with managing a proper community. But, I do not think it can be reconciled with ‘free speech’. Order is necessary, especially when dealing with a website which has over 250,000 accounts. If Digg were not to retain order by banning individuals who do not work towards the continuance of the site.

I would argue that there is nothing wrong with submitting a story on your own site for some Diggs, and the chance to become popular. This is a way for webmasters who have really good ideas to break out. If the story is good, it will become popular. If it isn’t, it will fall, and no harm done.

Of course, it galls a little to see users cheating the system. But I cannot condemn them. If free speech is supported, then they are also allowed to promote what they wish to promote, regardless of their motivation. If they group together to game the system, it is a shame. But in terms of free speech, I would not be able to condemn them.

That is the root of why Digg could never exist as an Open system. In order to maintain it’s own existence, Digg is forced to lay restrictions and enforce policies on it’s users. And banning users for what they say and/or do is not reconcilable to free speech.

So is there any system or place where free speech the way it should be interpreted is to be found? I would argue that there isn’t.

Share This