Consumer Democracy

A viewer suggested not too long ago that several of my content should be sent to Digg, an online website exactly where readers publish and choose newsworthy and interesting bits. The advice was flattering, and even it seems that some of what is mentioned here is by simply all balances of interest with a broad spectrum of visitors, but more interesting is still the process where Digg aspires to achieve targets of newsworthiness.

The site operates on the actual democratic principle that readers can select and choose precisely what submitted content articles they want to read and whether or not they want to "digg" these, with the clear result those articles with more number of "digs" obtain front-page coverage and therefore exposure. Pertaining to articles in which readers consider uninteresting, rather than just not voting, viewers have the option to pick "This is lame" * if there are motor these "lame-votes", this article is removed simply by supposedly light-handed moderators.

So far this all sounds like relatively intuitive democratic reasoning, and by just about all accounts there ought to be little complaint with the approach, but there has been some substantial voices involving opposition for the site's merit. The most recent assault was by simply one rather high-profile writer named Charlie Demerjian, who released an article called "Digg.com is worthless as a democratic concept" in which he or she recounted an experience of getting written a reasonable piece about gaming online to discover it had become overwhelmingly well-known. Deciding to submit it to Digg.com, Demerjian not surprisingly saw the popularity rocket and obtained more e-mails as well as comments, some in agreement and a few in difference of opinion with what he to say, nevertheless all good.

The website operates on the democratic principle that readers can pick and choose what submitted articles they want to read and whether they want to "digg" them. For more details please visit sierrademocracy.