A Try at Geek Poetry

(Question) DOES THIS HEADLINE WORK?
or Us Fish can Swim

Bait : Technology
the catch : Not Yours
The Release: Open Source

(Question) Who has actually read the Digg Terms of Use?

For the first time ever I spent more than an hour playing around on Digg, trying to get a handle on how the system works. It is remarkable the process each submission goes through before it can even be seen by the majority of the Digg audience.

Like many users, I signed up for the site as quick as humanly possible. I moved from one form field to the next, clicking every agreement in site without even once reading much into it.

For one reason or another, I went all the way down to the bottom of the Digg homepage and actually clicked on the Terms of Use link. In it I found a couple of intriguing things:

1.) Digg can kick just about any user off the site if it so desires

"Digg may terminate or suspend any and all Services and your Digg account immediately, without prior notice or liability, if you breach any of the terms or conditions of the Terms of Use."

Fair enough, but read elsewhere in the Terms of Use and it says:

"By uploading, submitting or otherwise disclosing or distributing Content for display or inclusion on the Site, you represent and warrant that you own all rights..."

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of the site? Isn't just about every submission a link to someone else's work? I submitted a YouTube video today that I didn't own the rights to - if Digg wanted, they could ban me from the site for it. Nice to know.

2.) Digg can Modfy the Terms of Service Whenever it would like.

"Digg reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to modify or replace the Terms of Use at any time."

Digg exists as a corporation, first and foremost to create value for it's shareholders. Of course if anyone is too disruptive, and could possibly lower the value, the terms of use can be changed to prevent that action from happening again.

But again, it's already written to support Diggs termination of any user. I doubt they'll change the terms to be more favorable to the users.

What is the point of this? I simply think that a corporation crowd-sourcing it's information should be more receptive to the public having a say in what its terms of use are. Perhaps Digg could have a wiki-style terms of service where the users vote (they are digg afterall) on what sort of people they want on the site.

I'll keep using Digg for the time being, but the second a user-owned site becomes available, you better bet that I'll move there.

On the Web: Less Anonymity, More Privacy

Sascha Segan has written a great article for PC magazine about how the Anonymity of the web has hurt communication and collaboration on the web. Here's an excerpt:

Face it, all "anonymity" saves you from is accountability before your peers. It lets people release the worst in themselves through trolling and online fraud, and disconnects people from a reality where you're held responsible for the stupid things you say. It dramatically lowers the reliability of Internet communication, as people can lie without real consequence. It makes Internet-based activism a joke when any online petition can be signed by a thousand sock puppets. Internet users need to face up to the 21st-century truth: What's online can't be separated from "real life." It's all real. It's just life.

Go read the entire article here.

3 Ways to Improve Digg By Opening Up

Digg has garnered a passionate fan-base by allowing the users themselves to have control over the site. With its semi-democratic "digg" system it has given the internet public a tool with which to bring important issues to light - many of which have been ignored by the mainstream media.

While this is good (I am after all, a frequent lurker on the site), there are several ways that it could be improved. I have put together a list of three ideas that I have to make Digg an even more powerful tool for the internet public:

1.) Get Rid of Anonymity - How is Digg ever going to reach the status of being a true democracy if its users can hide behind the veil of their internet user names?

• Digg needs a useful identity verification system which gives assurance to all users that "digging" is being done by real individuals and not simply someone who has paid for the votes.

• People will be less likely to post spam and digg a story without reading it first if they know that their true identity has been revealed to the rest of the users.
  

2.) Create a Spin-off Site For Users under 18 - Because requiring minors to reveal their identity is not feasible, those users need their own site. Beyond this, there are days that I get frustrated by the juvenile comments and story postings. While I understand that there are juvenile users over 18, I believe that a site filled with older members would be less attractive to those who love "Woman Steals Man's Genitals" type stories. As for the mature members under 18...have a system where a reputable member can sponsor a younger member.

3.) Allow new users' submissions to reach the front page - There needs to be a way fro new, fresh faces to be able to submit a story and have even a half-a-chance of reaching the front page - or at least getting a large amount of diggs. Digg clones will keep popping up until newcomers are treated with respect.


The common theme behind these ideas is creating a system that can be less-easily manipulated by those who use Digg solely for personal gain. Opening Digg up can only benefit the user and put more control into their hands.

What do you think?