Digg.com is a site where users submit stories, web pages, videos, or pictures to share with everyone else on the net. The catch of Digg is that users can digg or bury a story based on whether they like or dislike it. There is also a commenting system similar to those on youtube or blogs. As is common on many sites like these, some users enjoy writing stupid or inappropriate things in their comments, defeating the purpose of the site, for whatever reason. Maybe it makes them feel important. Not only do the users digg/bury the articles themselves, they can digg/bury other users comments. When a user's comment becomes buried (has more votes to bury than digg) it is no longer displayed by default in the comments section. You would have to click on a "show comment" button for the buried comment to view it. This is a good example of Wallace's "Raised Eyebrow". This is the process of members of the community showing the offender that they are not following the "netiquitte" with some kind of act. In this case, burying them.
When you join Digg, I'm sure that there is some disclaimer saying that you aren't allowed to write certain things, probably including racism and threats. I frequented this site for a while before I joined and did what most people do, which is fly through the signup process without reading anything. I'm fairly certain that everyone learns about this system of keeping users in check by seeing it firsthand. There is not much evidence of Wallace's "Sign on the Door" theory on Digg. This theory says that the rules about comments should be made very aware to me before anyone has to tell me with buries. At the time I signed up, I didn't even know for sure if there were any kinds of penalties for repeatedly violating the rules and posting bury worthy comments.
On Digg, the Leviathan is the enforcement from the users. They not only fuel the site by picking which posts are the coolest and worthiest of being on the front page, but show disruptive users that they are violating the commonly accepted ground rules of Digg.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I thought your blog was very interesting. I have never heard of this site before, but it seems to be a perfect representation of how the Leviathan operates online. Here, there appears to be two different Leviathans. The first one is made up of all the users who frequent the site in that they have the power to bury comments or articles that do not conform with the site's social norms. The second Leviathan would be the actual site administrators who establish the rules that users are not allowed to post racist comments or threats. I assume that there is some sort of consequence that the Leviathan imposes upon members who do not conform with these rules.
One thing that I think could have made your blog stronger is actually identifying the norms that predominate on the website. Are certain posts more likely to be burried than others? Do people burry racist comments or threats? It would be interesting to see how this plays out.
Danielle Rosenthal
I am not a digg member but I have seen a few interesting websites through digg links. As an outsider I was still able to use the site, and economics of attention dictated which link I click on. What I learned from your article is that there is a "burial" system which "raises the eyebrow" at those diggs which are not so popular. The leviathan operates as a mediator between the vast webscape of the long tail (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail)
and a series of hierarchical recommendations. Anderson states that we are no longer in the age of information, but in the age of recommendation. The leviathan of user registration (which requires you to read terms of service) is similar across websites, and I feel that since many sites have these agreements, it enforces etiquette web-wide. It is almost like the sign on the door is implied.
I like the post, but like Danielle I think some specificity about the norms, maybe even examples, would help bolster your argument.
Post a Comment