SoylentNews

JoeMerchant [soylentnews.org] writes:

For those unaware: digg [digg.com] is attempting a comeback. They opened their beta to the broad internet around January 18th or so. The site looks nice, there are some rough edges on the software (OAUTH wasn't working for me...) but it's mostly functional. What remains to be seen is: what will this new digg become? When digg left the scene (in the mid-late 2000s - by my reckoning), bots and AI and AI bots and troll farms and AI troll farms and all of that were a tiny fraction of their current influence. Global human internet users in 2007 were estimated at 1.3 billion vs 6 billion today, and mobile usage was just getting started vs its almost total dominance in content consumption now. There is some debate on digg whether they are trying to become reddit2, or what... and my input to that debate was along the lines of: digg is currently small, in its current state human moderation is the only thing that makes any sense, user self mods through blocks, community moderation through post and comment censorship (doesn't belong in THIS forum), and site moderation against griefers - mods all the way down; but as it grows, when feeds start getting multiple new posts per minute, human moderation becomes impractical - some auto-moderation will inevitably become necessary - and the nature of that auto-moderation is going to need to constantly evolve as the site grows and its user base matures.

Well, apparently I was right, because a few hours later my account appears to have been shadow banned - no explanation, just blocked from posting and my posts deleted. I guess somebody didn't like what I was saying, and "moderated" me away. As outlined above, I think a sitewide ban is a little overboard for the thought police to invoke without warning, but... it's their baby and I need to spend less time online anyway, no loss to me. And, digg isn't my core topic for this story anyway... I have also noticed some interesting developments in Amazon reviews - the first page of "my reviews" is always happy to see me, we appreciate the effort you put into your reviews, etc. etc., but... if I dig back a page or two, I start finding "review removed" on some older ones, and when I go to see what I wrote that might have been objectionable, I can't - it's just removed. There's a button there to "submit a new review" but, clicking that I get a message "we're sorry, this account is not eligible to submit reviews on this product." No active notice from Amazon that this happened, no explanation of why, or the scope of my review ineligibility, it just seems that if "somebody, somewhere" (product sellers are high on my suspect list) decides they don't like your review, it is quietly removed and you are quietly blocked from reviewing their products anymore. Isn't the world a happier place where we all just say nice things that everybody involved wants to hear? I do remember, one of my reviews that got removed was critical of a particular category of products, all very similarly labeled and described, but when the products arrive you never know from one "brand" to the next quite what you are getting, some are like car wax: hard until it melts in your hand, some are more water soluble, all are labeled identically with just subtle differences in the packaging artwork. I might have given 3/5 stars, probably 4, because: it was good car wax, but if you were expecting more of a hair mousse? The industry would do itself a favor by figuring out how to communicate that to customers buying their products, in my opinion. Well, that opinion doesn't even appear on Amazon anymore.

Something that has developed/matured on social sites quite a bit since the late 2000s are block functions. They're easier for users to use, control, some sites allow sharing of block lists among users. Of course this brings up obvious echo chamber concerns, but... between an echo chamber and an open field full of state and corporate sponsored AI trolls? I'd like a middle ground, but I don't think there's enough human population on the internet to effectively whack-a-mole by hand to keep the trolls in line. You can let the site moderators pick and choose who gets the amplified voices, and to circle back to digg - I haven't dug around about it, but if anybody knows what their monetization plan is, I wouldn't mind hearing speculation or actual quasi-fact based reporting how they intend to pay for their bandwidth and storage?

As I said and apparently got banned for: some moderation will always be necessary, and as the internet continues to evolve the best solutions for that will have to continue to evolve with it, there's never going to be an optimized solution that stays near optimal for more than a few months, at least not on sites that aspire to reddit, Xitter, Facebook, Bluesky, digg? sized user bases. As we roll along through 2026, who should be holding the ban hammers, and how often and aggressively should they be wielded? Apparently digg has some auto-moderation that's impractically over-aggressive at the moment, they say they're working on it. More power to 'em, they can work on it without my input from here on out.

Original Submission