It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Digg is Rigged, and a hacker obtained evidence. Re: The BBC and WTC7

page: 1
38
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Digg is Rigged, and a hacker obtained evidence. Re: The BBC and WTC7


Source Link: www.infowars.net

Reports this week have suggested that the online news community digg may be suffering abuse at the hands of a group of users that are burying Digg stories they find ideologically unappealing.

Rumours are flying around the internet that these so called "bury brigades" could be more than just a group of geeky self appointed censors and that it may actually be Digg themselves, or even agencies of the government, that are censoring stories and preventing the information from going viral.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:
www.rense.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
BBC News Reports Building 7 collapse 23 Minutes before it collapses.




posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
There have been many threads about this on Little Green Footballs, too, including images taken from Digg Spy showing this practice of burying anything ideologically unappealing to some and marking it as spam in the hopes the offending blog will be removed from Digg's lists.

Latest Entry At LGF



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
ATS was removed from DIGG in the same way.

They claim they received "hundreds" of complaints about us, and now you can't DIGG an ATS thread.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
ATS was removed from DIGG in the same way.

They claim they received "hundreds" of complaints about us, and now you can't DIGG an ATS thread.


Lol. They are saying there are more "conspiracy nuts" that actually digg than there
are "normal" people visiting then ?


*snip* sad btw the digg website..

Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3-3-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
The Data is here:

www.pronetadvertising.com...

And here are the users who have buried the most diggs.

www.pronetadvertising.com...

Related Wired article:

www.wired.com...



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
ATS was removed from DIGG in the same way.

They claim they received "hundreds" of complaints about us, and now you can't DIGG an ATS thread.


why does that not suprise me.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Clogging External Filters

Flagging and "democratic moderating" are neat concepts, but I think this illustrates some of the potential pitfalls of these systems.

We're experimenting with flagging on ATS, and so far, it seems quite cool.

But I pray no one will ever trust such systems to be the end-all and be-all of what they should read.

The only person qualified to decide what you should read is YOU.

To the extent we can all remember that, the world will be a better place.

Can you digg it?



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
So? Digg's a cheap knock, low-brow knock-off o slashdot anyway. Slashdot's editors at least don't even try to pretend to be partial, and there is an actual culture there.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
im sorry, I just dont understand.
I went to digg and looked up 911
I found the bbc wt7 story and the dick cheny story about him having fore knowledge of the pentagon attack.
What stories are being removed if these to most important ones that clearly damage the US Governments integrity are still there?



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
It may be other ideologies than your own that are being buried, my friend. Check out the link I provided above for more details. If the understanding still isn't there, I may be able to help you understand who some of the groups are that are burying posts and ideas that do not match what it is they do not believe.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmeartifacts
im sorry, I just dont understand.
I went to digg and looked up 911
I found the bbc wt7 story and the dick cheny story about him having fore knowledge of the pentagon attack.
What stories are being removed if these to most important ones that clearly damage the US Governments integrity are still there?


digg.com...

this one, also, i would recommend to read at least some of the comments made there too, very informative.

[edit on 4-3-2007 by zren]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Digg is the biggest waste of time of a site to read. Posters have teams of people "digg themselves" to get their story on the cover to get more hits. Its gotten to the point its unbearable.

Kevin Rose (the owner) has already made his cash and a ton of it. I know he's already on bigger and better projects. Digg has already peaked and there isn't much more room to grow.

[edit on 4-3-2007 by leafer]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Seems that if a "digg" can be buried then it's false advertising on how it works right? could the sponsors on the digg site get their monies back? I think it's only fair right> Digg that LMAo

I Hope no serious ATS'ers use digg, seems like a really lame site designed to show Puff pieces , as far as the reference to a "geek site" there are many better ones, like "Toms Hardware" that have been around a LONG time, I don't see the relevance to such a lame site. ( but then look how many folks bought a "pet" rock)

[edit on 4-3-2007 by thedigirati]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I'm giving it a test run. I've put a news article on there regarding NASA cover-ups. Now to see what happens to it. It could be that their new approach (after this avalanche of criticism) is to simply ignore rather than bury, controversial sites/news stories. Pity the guy who buried the most articles. He's probably not a very popular guy right about now.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
I'm giving it a test run. I've put a news article on there regarding NASA cover-ups. Now to see what happens to it. It could be that their new approach (after this avalanche of criticism) is to simply ignore rather than bury, controversial sites/news stories. Pity the guy who buried the most articles. He's probably not a very popular guy right about now.

Well, what was the result? I'm not very digg savy because the stories on there STINK. The things this country seems interested in (or at least the things that the powers that be want us to be interested in) are about as compelling as navel lint. If anyone can find out I'd be much oblidged



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Digg sold out ages ago, you're wasting your time.No one takes the site seriously any more.
We have a Digg domain name, and we may very well put it to good use after reading this thread.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 02:55 AM
link   
"Call it crowdhacking"

What an informative article TheBandit795, thanks.



From wired.com
Digg founder Kevin Rose says he’s working to root out the dishonesty. Digg’s watchdogs understand the legitimate ways that stories become popular. Using that model, they’re constantly tweaking algorithms that seek out nonstandard voting patterns. “Flags go up if, for instance, you’ve created a bunch of new accounts and they all do one thing,” Rose says. The alarm also sounds if all the votes for a particular story come from one referring site, or if votes for a story come from people who don’t click through to read it before giving the thumbs-up.




So we have an arms race: the crowd-hackers manipulating eBay and Yahoo and Digg and del.icio.us versus the crowd defenders — developers and other users who scrub scams out of the system. The University of Michigan’s Resnick is optimistic that the good guys will prevail, so long as they continue to build algorithms that smoke out the cheaters. “A good reputation system makes people more trustworthy,” Resnick says, “because word gets around if they’re not.”




the crowd can’t always be trusted.


Never had any clue this stuff was so rampant... and effective. Also noticed some similarities with how ATS does, and other sites do, news now. Destined to fail?

This issue is definately bigger than just Digg, for sure.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
it didn't go so well. people who tried to make accounts to digg it, were told various things including their ISP was not allowed to make accounts with digg. the people who did try to digg it, were informed they had to make an account and of course, if the ISP wasn't accepted, there goes the digg. generally-speaking, not that many people wanted to have to make an account there just to digg it. and as mentioned in the article above this post, they don't like it when first timers digg the same article. you're apparently not allowed to advertise your own digg or encourage others to digg it. too many flippin' rules.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by zren
Lol. They are saying there are more "conspiracy nuts" that actually digg than there
are "normal" people visiting then ?


*snip* sad btw the digg website..


[edit on 3-3-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]


No, they are saying that people who do not believe in conspiracies were complaining to them for being directed to our site, apparently.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by supercheetah
So? Digg's a cheap knock, low-brow knock-off o slashdot anyway. Slashdot's editors at least don't even try to pretend to be partial, and there is an actual culture there.


they arnt quite the same

"Slashdot is put together by an editorial board. Digg uses the collective wisdom of the masses ."

not that I am knocking slashdot, digg may be more chaotic as far as its social structure but that has its apeal also as social endorphins are not really my drug of choice



new topics

top topics



 
38
<<   2 >>

log in

join