This is a very interesting story about Digg itself. Essentially it boils down to an open discussion about how much control can be put on the way information flows through Digg. The Digg concept is that the users control the visibility and importance of content. If there is an editorial decision made by executives at Digg to remove or change content, does that completely void the spirit of Digg? Or are there some things that shouldn’t appear? Digg is a creative exercise in what is essentially freedom of speech. The same arguments have been in play for years in that bigger arena. Is burning the US flag protected under the first amendment? Is slander protected? Where do we draw the line? It seems to me that we need to draw it as close as possible to totally free discourse. I like that the Digg executives were looking out for their company, their employees and our ability to continue to use their service. I also like that users spoke up and make their concerns known. The decision to reverse their position is hopeful at least about the future of Digg and this kind of creative thinking. Ultimately Digg should find its way to the right balance if they at least continue to keep their eye on potentially dangerous content. It can be a knife edge, but their hearts are in the right place and the goal is to keep open the kind of dialog that caused them to change their minds. Good stuff!
May 3, 2007 · 6:15 am