16 upvotes, 4 direct replies (showing 4)
View submission: Removing harassing subreddits
It wasn't really because of censorship, it was shortly after they redesigned the site making it far worse to use and also changed content submission so only "power users" or curators could submit stories. They basically just wanted to segment what people were viewing, people keep saying it was censorship but I have to disagree, they just had a really stupid idea they refused to back off of.
Comment by Billy_Whiskers at 11/06/2015 at 15:39 UTC*
5 upvotes, 2 direct replies
That, and removing the bury button. Together these changes meant that it was no longer a community news site moderated by the votes of users, but a channel to sell an audience to established publishers where your only option is to 'approve' whatever the MSM is putting out. There was no 'disagree' or 'dissent'.
Where Digg v3 was a common forum where everyone participates, in v4 the stories you are shown were to be based on a personal filter bubble made from what your friends and people with similar interests voted for, more like Facebook's news feed.
None of that was what the user base wanted (or me personally), but Kevin Rose did it anyway, presumably under pressure to make money for his investors. They took away people's option to vote against things, so users voted against Digg by leaving for Reddit.
On the other hand, the first Digg user revolt[1] was about censorship.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy
edit: correct version number
Comment by just_upvote_it_ffs at 11/06/2015 at 14:50 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Yeah, i wasnt sure enough to question it, but I definetly was under the impression that it had to do with the voting system and the ability to basically purchase a top spot.
Comment by dkyguy1995 at 11/06/2015 at 15:04 UTC
4 upvotes, 1 direct replies
What's that old saying? Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance?
Comment by [deleted] at 11/06/2015 at 14:40 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
"power users" or curators could submit stories
Isn't that technically what's happening now?
all the shadowbans that i've heard of and read about. the new "policies" that act as a blanket restriction of people posting certain types of things or ideas with people that are as fucked up and twisted as themselves?
there's something to be said about blocking/banning illegal content, but creating a "safe space" like they're trying to do is just silencing those that they don't agree with.
Typical liberal behavior though, "we respect everyone's opinion... ^except ^if ^it's ^different ^than ^our ^own"