So, THIS is why many progressive sites have gotten more conservative in the past year! (xpost)

[bananas]

Xpost from GD:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9542227&mesg_id=9542227

So, THIS is why many progressive sites have gotten more conservative in the past year!

Orchestrated Censorship by Conservativ Social Media Behemoth, Digg.com

A group of influential conservative members of the behemoth social media site Digg.com have just been caught red-handed in a widespread campaign of censorship, having multiple accounts, upvote padding, and deliberately trying to ban progressives. An undercover investigation has exposed this effort, which has been in action for more than one year.

"The more liberal stories that were buried the better chance conservative stories have to get to the front page. I'll continue to bury their submissions until they change their ways and become conservatives." -phoenixtx (aka vrayz)
...
One bury brigade in particular is a conservative group that has become so organized and influential that they are able to bury over 90% of the articles by certain users and websites submitted within 1-3 hours, regardless of subject material.
...

[vi5]

1. Is Digg itself conservative?

I never really thought so, but I know that conservative users of it have done this and remember reading about it. But I don't think Digg itself is conservative, is it?

[joshcryer]

8. No, Digg tries to be "neutral." DU is liberal and the Greatest Page reflects that.

Anyone who claims that this is happening on DU with the rec/unrec feature is deluded. Look at the Greatest Page. You'd think we were some bastion for progressive ideas going by it.

[kristopher]

2. It certainly gives a different understanding of the value of the unrec feature,

doesn't it?

[joshcryer]

6. Unrec's primary value is in less trafficked subforums that would result in a spamfest...

...were it not for level headed individuals being able to send a signal to the spammers from posting so much nonsense.

[joshcryer]

3. This doesn't apply to DU.

[kristopher]

4. This is proof of concept that "gangs" of people with specific agendas are targetting social media.

The article doesn't specifically cite DU, but concluding "this doesn't apply to DU" is not possible.

[joshcryer]

5. True, there are a contingent of posters here who will "bury" other environmental posts...

[Confusious]

12. Proof of concept

This is old news from more then a year ago.

It was on slashdot more then a year ago.

proof of concept. is there an award for misuse of a concept? You would win it.

:rofl:

I suggest a tinfoil hat and a butt plug, So they can't read your thoughts or probe your nether regions.

Maybe listen to a little black sabbath in to go with it.

Everyone doesn't agree with me, so there must be spies here! waaaaahhhh!

[joshcryer]

13. Indeed, Dig got rid of "bury" months ago.

It killed the site though because it no longer was able to be gamed so easily.

[bananas]

7. DU is constantly subjected to conservative disruptors

There have even been moderators who were conservative trolls.
And look at the crap that happened to Andy.

[joshcryer]

9. Yeah? The OP is talking about a voting mechanism. Look at the Greatest Page.

The Greatest Page does not reflect "infiltration." While no doubt there are infiltrators for various corporate interests and agendas, they are not reflected on the Greatest Page.

[Occulus]

16. The GP is only a reflection of recs v. unrecs.

Personally, I think 5 recs is far too low, but it's not my decision.

I pointed out something on the thread linked to in the OP, and I think I'll point it out here as well. Every time a thread is posted in which even legitimate criticism of Obama, his administration, or his policies is raised- threads regarding DADT are an excellent example- an 'argument tree' inevitably develops between those who express reasonable criticism and those who support Obama, his administration, and his policies 100%, regardless of the facts of the situation in question or the record of decisions regarding the policy in question.

By contrast, any thread which points to objective proof that Obama has failed to live up to a campaign promise- DADT again comes immediately to mind as an example- those serial agreers are almost always remarkably absent. I am not the only one to have noticed this. I should state here that I have literally dozens of people on my ignore list at this point, most of whom are derisively (and accurately) termed "cheerleaders" by more reasonable posters here, and on these threads, they are almost always nearly completely absent.

Obama told us during the campaign that we have to "make him do it", whatever policy that may be. Yet, whenever a thread is opened by someone who is trying to make him "do it"- DOMA, DADT, financial reform, Medicare For All, etc., and etc., those threads are overrun by ponies, poutrage, President Palin, and it'sonlybeentwodays/weeks/years.

I cannot help but draw a connection between the Digg story (which is actually several weeks old and proven by concrete evidence at this point) and that behavior. It makes far too much sense to be discounted out of hand as a tactic some posters here at DU can and will use, even though DU does not have a voting system beyond rec/unrec.

It's impossible to prove, of course, unless you are an admin who has access to IP logs and you're in communication with other sites who are being abused in this same fashion. I don't know if that's the case or not, but it's certainly worth investigating IMO.

[joshcryer]

17. I'm satisified with the results.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Confusious]

10. I usually forget about the unrec feature

until someone whines about it, like now.

Thanks for the reminder, unrec.

[SidDithers]

14. Unrec...nt

Sid

[Gold Metal Flake]

15. Rec...nt