Handling executions in a Digg democracy

Shovel vs. hammer

For a website that prides itself on its democratic approach to news selection, Digg has a tricky line to walk when it comes to silencing its users. 

As the number of Diggers increases -- the site says it had 29 million visitors last month -- its moderators are finding that banning rogue users and erasing their contributions is becoming a daily occurrence.  But as with many evolving social media communities, the site's growth seems to be outpacing its ability to keep members informed about what's OK and what's not. 

Last Friday morning, Badwithcomputer, a Digg top user whom Web Scout profiled last month, got quite a surprise when he discovered his account had been disabled.

"I woke up around 11 to find out I wasn't able to log in," he said via instant message. As usual with a Digg ban, he'd received no warning that a ban was impending. His account was restored, again without notice, two hours later. For the duration of the ban, the stories he'd submitted vanished from the active parts of the site.

When Badwithcomputer contacted Digg's support team via e-mail, he was sent an excerpt of Digg's terms of service, stating that users may not use the site to sell items. He thinks his Obama T-shirt submission did it. But he doesn't know for sure.

It's probably not fair to compare the way Digg enforces its rules to any real justice system -- after all, this is a quirky social website we're talking about, not a law-bound nation of human beings. But given that many Digg users spend significant time and energy providing the site with content, there's an argument that banning users from the site with no warning for no clear reason and without a publicly viewable record is not what you'd call a people-first approach.

Company CEO Jay Adelson says the number of bans are in line with other social media sites and that ban information is kept secret for a reason. "Users have requested that we respect their privacy and not draw particular attention to these situations," he said by phone.

Adelson maintains that users of the site are safe as long as they abide by the rules they agreed to when they signed up. "The only time a comment, a submission or anything on Digg is ever deleted is if it's in violation of our terms of service," he said.

But abiding by those terms can be something of a guessing game. "Digg may remove any Content and Digg accounts at any time for any reason," they say, "or for no reason at all." 

Though that might remind you of a police state, Digg certainly isn't that.  For one thing, it doesn't have enough police to qualify. Adelson says at any given time, the site has only two moderators working to enforce the terms of service across the entire site -- clearly not enough manpower to offer users detailed explanations of why they're being punished.

But without those explanations, the site's application of its own rules can seem unpredictable. 

Digg's moderators, for instance, seemed to keep an extra close eye on recent activity by CBS anchor Katie Couric, who asked the site's users to submit questions she could use for interviews at the recent political conventions. Several users complained that their accounts were suspended after they'd placed critical comments on that story, and that the comments themselves were erased.

Digg user Paul Weber said in an e-mail that he was banned for a comment that criticized Couric for her membership on the Council on Foreign Relations. "I don't see how I violated terms of service," Weber wrote in an e-mail to Digg. "I have seen much worse attacks on Ron Paul and Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney and myself, which were not even based in truth." 

Nathan Oyler, a longtime user with dozens of front-page stories under his belt, said he was banned for comments portraying Couric and CBS in a negative light. According to Oyler, Digg deleted several of his comments, including one where he called her "vapid" and uneducated on political issues, another where he listed CBS' company assets, and a third asking why his comments were being removed.

Digg's support team referred Oyler to the TOS section condemning users who "abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other Digg users" and also highlighted the "no reason at all" clause.

When asked about the Couric-related banning, a Digg spokesperson wrote that "less than ten" accounts had been disabled for activity on the Couric post — and that several of the banned users were repeat TOS-offenders.  Digg did not say how many comments were deleted.

While even a single violation can warrant an account deletion, Digg often reinstates accounts as long as they agree to follow the TOS in the future -- which Oyler did. "So I had to reaffirm that they can delete anything I write at any time," Oyler wrote, "including for complaining about them removing my comments."

-- Mark Milian

Sheigh Crabtree and David Sarno contributed to this report.

Comments

[Ben McKay]

There seems to be a growing inconsistency to Diggs behavious...is it getting to big for the administrators to handle do you think? Needs to rethink before it upsets too many long-term heavy-weight users I think....

Ben

[Koas]

Digg is being manipulated to silence the truth for political gain

[william]

Digg seems to be everywhere in the media today, we just published an interview with the top 3 users on Digg, the Digg trinity if you will:

http://www.gearcrave.com/buyers-guide/features/interviews/lifestyles-of-the-digger-famous-3-top-diggers-on-social-fame/

[Adam McHugh]

I would like to add to this,
I have been banned twice from Digg, their reason was excessive digging. On both occassions there was no reason for the ban, there was no reply to the numerous (oh so very numerous emails).
I should add, any domains for websites I have submitted (that Digg have not seen prior) were also flagged as a source of spam or intermediate content. And as such the domains are no longer available to submit.

Digg is a good place to browse and read current news, however when it comes to Digg's TOS and how they enforce their TOS they find themselves severely lacking.
I will put money on now that I have listed my name and website on this comment that I will be silenced from Digg and IP banned (just like everyone else that rises up against the beast).

[Billco]

Digg has always been a very lopsided forum, which is unfortunate as it is the most successful site of its kind, yet offers a very unprofessional, dare I say juvenile view that is very blatantly manipulated by a small group of users working together to game the system. Comment censorship is only one of the many ways Digg's content is tailored for its corporate interests.

The internet is supposed to be a borderless world of free speech where one voice can be heard by millions. Digg doesn't get it, frankly Jay Adelson is a prime example of the kind of CEO that resulted in the dot-com bust. He can't play the PR game worth a damn, and he can't seem to kiss up to the cash cows too good either. Digg's days are counted.

[RUsty]

Digg is consistant...you have to give them that! Anything that will portray anything on "the right"
as bad gets a green light, and somehow dugg up to show on the front page. Just about anything "on the left" that shows the liberal side in a negative light gets buried. Digg.com has become the new home for those sites such as huffingtonpost, DailyKOS and other left leaning sights.

[Robert]

My account was disabled or banned a week or so ago and, after reading about what happened to Paul Weber, it seems that the reason might have been related to a satirical question I posted for Nancy Pelosi. If Digg expects to have much of a future, then it should embrace freedom of speech. For instance, it should strongly consider revising its policy to require a reason for disabling accounts and it should also notify banned users by email of their account's disabled status and the reason for it. Otherwise, its users will begin to feel unjustly targeted, as I did, for expressing themselves.

[akpwnz]

I was also banned in the Katie Couric thread. I said something along the lines of "when I see you on tv it gets tighter in my shorts". I kinda had that one coming.

[BannedByDiggForSupportingPalin]

I was just banned for saying nice things about Sarah Palin. Digg has become a political spamming ground for Obamma supporters.

I created a new account named PalinForPrez with no affiliation to the other account and that got banned within seconds of posting. Digg told me it was banned because you can have only one account. Odd they were able to figure out that I am both a 42 year old man from florida and a 36 year odl woman from Afhanaistan using a different yahoo email account and created and posted from different ip addresses.

Scary to think that censorship is being used on Digg by Obama followers to promote Obama's presidency. On Digg, now you will read what the Obama fanatics want you to read and say what they want you to say. Wonder what they will do to freedom of speech if Obama does become president.

[Alex]

I was banned during the Katie Couric thing. I was banned for saying she looked like an alien and also suggesting someone record the questions that were being asked so they weren't neutered when the time came for her to ask the tough questions. Sure enough, questions were neutered and my comment was deleted as well as my account.

When i asked why I was banned, I was told that months prior to the couric thread, I called her a pretty word (starts with a "C") and that I didn't trust her motives on some other topic. Considering she wasn't a "member" of digg till just recently, I thought their argument of "abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other Digg users" was garbage. I just stopped using the website. Digg jumped the shark. In my opinion they're doing this for their potential suitors. Nobody can take them seriously if their commenters badmouth the people they work with.

I had been a member for years and even built the Digg case mod. So much for that. I was told my account could be reinstated as well but I chose to go elsewhere (reddit).

[gquaglia]

Digg.com has become the new home for those sites such as huffingtonpost, DailyKOS and other left leaning sights.

Not surprising as a good majority of Digg users are college students or recent graduates. These types of left wing propaganda is rampant in todays universities.

[digg2005]

I've been banned over 5 times, I just reregister with more fake information, it really doesnt stop me, oh yeh and I block ads too, up yours Kevin Rose

[Jiff Woods]

Sounds like Digg is becoming like Wikipedia which is run by fascist who decide what does and doest get posted regardless of truth or fact. Pretty sad if that is the case.

Jiff
www.anonymize.kr.tc

[James]

My account was banned for posting that she was hot.

[Xbox]

That's pretty crazy. Digg should handle the banning of users in a better fashion.

[Mike]

I was also banned during the Couric/Digg corporate f***fest for an "offensive" comment. C'mon everyone want to know if she had lesbian experiences in undergrad. What's offensive about that?

[charlie]

This is the reply that I got back from digg support after the digg account dighere was banned:

"Your account was reported to us for abusive activity in comments.
Specifically, for spamming comment threads with off-topic Bible quotes."

[Clarissa]

Digg will ban users without warning. I was banned, received no warning, I did not spam, I simply did what others did, I submitted my site via self promoting/ self marketing. I asked them why I was banned and they gave me a general message "violated TOS" that they give to everyone. I did not have porn, nor had spam. So I asked them to reinstate my account and they told me they will not.
their TOS says they can ban but they have to give a warning before they do that. If they do not give a warning they either need to update their TOS or follow their own rules and give that deserved warning.