Note: I have a Meebo chatbox on the sidebar. So, if you are interested, you can chat with me directly about this post
Imagine a Digg or Reddit or Mixx where you can vote on what features you what. Then if the management did not implement them, you could fire the management. If you interested in such a wonderful social media where the power is completely with the users, read on.
As this article is rather long, if you already follow Digg, Reddit or other social media and know about its problems such as the pictures section and the comment system , you can start reading The Solution (that is where I explain exactly how such an open social media should be) right away. Or if you really need to know this article is about right now, you can read the summary below and then, read the entire article.
A powerful media needs to be as transparent as possible. It must not be biased due to the influence of a single individual. The only way we can achieve the best social media is by being open, by following the principles of a democracy and by embracing the community. Openness opens up new horizons and allows for so many awesome things. The possibilities with such an open system are endless.
.
Problems with social media
.
Social media websites like Digg and Reddit have seen a lot of backlash lately over various policy issues. Of course, the most widely covered protest was about the HD-DVD key. The protest was so huge that Digg could not ignore it. Eventually, they did what they should have done much earlier- listen to their users. After that incident, one would expect Digg to be more careful and open about censorship. But that hasn’t happened. Digg has gotten back into its habit of not listening to users. More recently, a top digger was banned for submitting the link to an obscene picture. Perhaps, such a punishment was too severe for something that managed to get to the Reddit homepage. After all, the guy has invested a lot of time in Digg and such users ought to be treasured and occasionally, forgiven when they make mistakes. Besides this incident, there are many others and they have been well documented by passionate digg users. [1]
Another different kind of long standing issue with Digg is their pictures section. The first story (9373 diggs) requesting for the pictures section was submitted nearly 300 days ago and they still haven’t implement it. The users have rallied constantly by digging front page stories every week or so. In response, a long time after the first story, the Digg team said that pictures section was on the way. Then, 200 days after the first story, Digg said that the pictures section would be live by October. But on the 26th of October, Kevin Rose apologized and said “we’re planning to go live a little closer to the end of the year.” But seriously, how long does it take to create a pictures section when it took this guy 7 hours? And even if they wanted to make a really good pictures section with great integration, how about “releasing early and often” and not keeping your users waiting for an year.
Digg changed their comment system (2560 diggs)about five months back. Later, on the same day, another story “New Digg Comment System FTL. Old system FTW” (6936 diggs) was submitted. On this story, the most dugg comment was “No kidding. This sucks” (+1863 diggs). But the Digg team only made a few minor changes and didn’t really address the concerns of most diggers. A few months later, “Digg Its Been Almost 3 Months, Can We Get A New Comment System Now?” became popular with 9882 diggs! One comment was “I don’t fucking understand it, why don’t they just change it to the podcast comment system, it’s exactly what everyone wants.” This pretty much sums up what bothers me too. If everyone wants something, why don’t you just get them what they want?
More recently, Digg announced Digg the Candidates, a way to befriend and track various presidential candidates. Although the section was exteremely popular among diggers, the comment with the most diggs -
“Give me a fucking break. Quit adding crap and fix the damn comments and add the one month late pic section.”
.
Evolution of mass media
.
.Let’s talk a bit about mass media for a while. Mass media has evolved since Johannes Gutenberg made the first printing press in 1453. In the beginning, there were only newspapers. Writers wrote articles and editors decided which ones would be published. Then, there was television which was basically the extension of news from text and images to video and audio forms. However, the television was still controlled by the company, its editors and reporters. And in both television and newspapers, mass participation was limited. For the case of newspapers, interested readers could send in letters to the newspapers and on television, you could call in. But of course, the media company could chose what they wanted to publish or show. Then, with the Internet, citizen journalism became extremely popular and widespread so much so that CNN, the biggest media agency in the world, had to incorporate i-Report into their news bulletins and organize CNN-Youtube debates. The masses were now replacing the role of writers and reporters due to the work of great companies like WordPress and Youtube.
Besides producing content, traditional media also does another thing- decide what you read or watch. At first, Slashdot let users submit stories (so, in some way, the users choose what stories got on Slashdot) which were then published by a bunch of editors (but the final decision to publish still rested with the Slashdot editors). Then, Digg came along and it let the users themselves be the editors and decide what content goes on the frontpage. Thus, after a long process of evolution, socials media now allows users to be both the writers and the editors. But as described earlier, there is still a great deal of bias and moderation in Digg and Reddit. The reason for this is that the owners of these media have too much power. Surprisingly, this has already been understood by traditional media. From the Wikipedia article on Reuters,
However, there were concerns that the company’s tradition for objective reporting might be jeopardised if control of the company later fell into the hands of a single shareholder. To counter this possibility, the constitution of the company at the time of flotation included a rule that no individual was allowed to hold more than 15% of the company. If this limit is exceeded the directors can order the shareholder to reduce the holding to less than 15%. This rule was applied in the late 1980s when Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which already held around 15% of Reuters, bought an Australian news company which also had a holding in Reuters. The acquisition meant that Murdoch then held more than 15% and he was obliged to reduce the holding to less than 15% in line with the rules.
What we can conclude is that a site owned by a single individual or a small group of people is bound to be biased.
.
The Solution
.
But now, we can solve all of Digg’s problems and take the next step in the evolution of the media. What we need is an open social media. Completely open. (Read on before you think this is cliche).
.
Let me explain what I mean by completely open. Every website has several spheres – content, management, resources and code. And in open social media, every one of these four spheres must be open.
Open content means that anyone i.e users get to choose what content is displayed on the website. In Digg, the content is indeed partially open as anyone can vote and submit stories. But I said partially open because as explained earlier, there is still moderation. On the other hand, in a completely open system that I propose, there will be no moderation or black-lists or auto-burying.
Open management means that the users of the site themselves form the decision-making arm of the management. Ideally, this could and is happening on any site. For example, Reddit and Digg users have come up with some very good ideas for the site. Redditers have posted stories such as fixing reddit: upmod, downmod, sidemod (—> take it to Politics), Tell Reddit: Can you please fix the hidden comment function? and Does anyone else think the Reddit front page is increasingly starting to look like it’s made up of crazy fringe wackos?. However, on most stories like this, the management does not even give a response, let alone, take action.
But in an open system, such user suggestions will be implemented and welcomed. In order to do this, there needs to be a unified system where such suggestions can be submitted. If the suggestions are popular, then the management must go with it. It’s a democracy where if more than 50% or 75 % of users (this democracy/popularity algorithm itself will be voted on by the people) want to see some change, it has to be implemented. The people that are officially in the management only take care of the site on a daily basis and most importantly, execute or bring about the changes proposed by the users. Hence, the management does not make major decisions without the approval of the userbase.
Then again, how can we ensure that the management will actually listen to its users? Firstly, the structure of the site is such that this suggestion/management system is central to the site and hence, if the users lose faith in the system, they would just leave the site. But more than such accountability, the users have even more power in such an open system. The users can not only control the features on the site but they can also control the management. They can vote to remove the management if they fail to get the job done or to listen to the users. Besides, anyone should be able to join the management. Hence, ineffectiveness or disobedience on the part of the management is virtually impossible.
In this way, users will be able to contribute great ideas to the website and make sure that these ideas are actually implemented. Just imagine if Digg had such a system, we would already have great features like the pictures section and the old comment system.
Resources are essential for any website. Who will pay for all this if they (the management or investors) have no control over the website? Well, the only other reason they would invest in such a website was if it made profits (enough cash to give up control completely). But, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that it is possible to run this website without investment, there are two possible revenue models. First, we could run entirely on donations like the Wikimedia foundation. There are clear problems with this and it may or may not work. The other revenue model is obviously ads. If we can make enough money to pay for our expenses, it should be good enough as without investors, there would be no pressure to make extra money. However, this revenue model also has disadvantages.
Resources are open in the sense that the users can decide what changes must be made to the revenue model. As the expenses of the site will be regularly published, the users can make decisions on the expenditure and budget of the website. In this way, through such transparency, it will be possible to have a dedicated user-base. And as a result, regardless of the chosen revenue model, if the community is strong, it would be possible to somehow survive. For example, some dedicated users could donate servers to run the website. This especially has an advantage if there are controversial content such as the HD-DVD key on the website. Perhaps, a user in Netherlands could web host a server there.
Lastly, the code too will be open i.e. the web application will be open source. Of course, this isn’t the first open source social news system and this in itself, is not revolutionary. But the code being open source gives us several benefits that are explained below.
“The whole is more than the sum of its parts.”
Being open in the every sphere improves other spheres as well. Take the case of moderation for instance. Suppose some users observe that there is some moderation going on. Then, as the application that is running live on the server is open source, they will be able to look at the code and database and check if there indeed is a black-list. Suppose they do find something wrong, they will be able to change the open source code. Also, as the management is also open, they will be able to vote for the sacking of whoever was involved in this intentional moderation. Suppose instead, the moderation was because the stories violated some local laws. Then, some user can offer to relocate the servers to a more liberal country as the resources are also open.
As users get to vote on features, there might be too many things to implement for the small management team. But due to the code being open source, users can also contribute code. The power of such community contributions is huge and highly underestimated. Since digg users have wanted a pictures section for a long time, many poeple have implemented their own version of the Digg pictures. Digpicz, Peteris Krumins’ site is highly popular and it shows the power of user contributions. The problem with Digg and many other closed source system is that such community is not embraced and encouraged. But instead, they are ignored constantly. With an open management and open source code, such contributions can become part of the website.
Yet another possibility is the lack of an API for such a website. Why do we need a wrapper API when the code is open source and the database can be read by anyone[2]?
.
Summary
.
A powerful media needs to be as transparent as possible. It must not be biased due to the influence of a single individual. The only way we can achieve the best social media is by being open, by following the principles of a democracy and by embracing the community. Openness opens up new horizons and allows for so many awesome things. The possibilities with such an open system are endless.
NOTE: If anyone wants to help, with either coding or ideas, in the initial stages of building the architecture for an open social media, please email me at chimneydials@gmail.com.
[1] Another case in point is that of a 17-year-old who got banned because he tried to get diggers to join a Facebook group for diggers. Of course, later, Kevin Rose himself violated the TOS by creating a very similar Facebook fan page for Digg and asking diggers to join it.
[2] Let us not debate about the security concerns with an openly readable database first
I agree, these are all big problems. I’ve been giving Stirrdup (http://stirrdup.com) a try. They claim to be a solution to the censorship problems. We’ll see. So far so good.
Of course, we can try different services like Stirrdup or Mixx or whatever you like. But my point is that any social news site owned by a company will eventually have some problems (either censorship or lack of features). Hence, the best possible social media has to be owned by the community. Hope I got that point across.
Won’t the community itself begin to take on a slant or bias? “Get the hell off this blog” or “you’re in the wrong place” are posted too often. In some First Amendment cases, a ‘chilling effect’ is recognized as a violation even when there isn’t direct censorship. I often see the ‘chilling effect’ in communities.
Ten-K, yes, chilling effect happens in most communities. However, it would be possible to prevent a community from taking a slant by building a more positive community. I know this sounds rather ideal and not practical but I believe part of the reason for chilling effect in communities such as Digg is because there’s a lot of negativity. Mainly because people are angered by Digg’s lack of feedback or lack of features or low quality of content. If we can solve these problems and the people are happy, then, we can reduce the ‘chilling effect’ in such communities. Of course, we should never ban people for having differing views. In short, it all depends on how we grow the community.
More practically speaking, it might be a good idea for social media sites to show both the number of up votes and down votes. Then, at least, you will know that some people support your viewpoint although the majority might oppose it.
BTW, if any person is interested in developing such an open community, please contact me at chimneydials@gmail.com
This is no next step. It has been done long before Digg with Independent Media Centers all over the world: http://www.indymedia.org/
Profit oriented media Web 2.0 like Digg are not democratic but based on exploitation of the many for the financial gain of the few.
@Tad Chef, that’s precisely what I am saying. Digg is only somewhat democratic and it is profit-oriented. That’s why we need an open and independent social media that is created and managed by the community (i.e. no one makes money out of it). Isn’t that a next step? We are making the media completely democratic which even IMC isn’t (IMC only allows anyone to write news stories, it does not allow the community to be the editors).
“Of course, we can try different services like Stirrdup or Mixx or whatever you like. But my point is that any social news site owned by a company will eventually have some problems (either censorship or lack of features). Hence, the best possible social media has to be owned by the community. Hope I got that point across.”
You’re basically describing Wikipedia/Wikinews. I can’t think of a place that’s more prone to censorship than those places. It’s even worse than Digg. Given the opportunity, users of any service can become as power-hungry as any corporation can. Suddenly they’re deleting your stuff because they don’t like it.
Giving users complete power certainly isn’t a solution to censorship. If anything it exasperates the problem. When is the last time you’ve seen a pro-Bush article on Digg/Reddit or any other social news site? 2000, probably. But 25% of the population is still full-steam ahead in support of him. Where does all that support go? It gets buried. Every time. The community censors it way before Digg staff could even get the opportunity.
It’s why I brought up that Stirrdup site. It seems to be the only service trying something different in that regard. Who knows if it will scale though.
@stan,
First, we need to be clear about the purpose of social media — which is to let the users pick what goes on the frontpage. Hence, they are playing the role of editors in traditional media. Based on what you are suggesting, if the majority of a community does not like the picture of a new car, it must still be on the frontpage. So, if every article got dugg up which you say equates to non-censorship, then I don’t even see the point of voting. Then, there is no place for social media itself. But I do agree with you in that if something has a reasonably high level popularity like 25%, we must find a way to not take it off the frontpage and show that in fact, a significant minority actually like the story. We also need to figure out how to separate burying of spam, inaccurate information and differing views. For the first two, we can take the story off the frontpage but for the last one, we will leave it on the frontpage. Perhaps, we could show both the total number of up votes and down votes.
Besides this is not as big a problem as censorship by the Digg the company because it prevents stories that most people like (like foxnewsporn or HD-DVD key) from reaching the frontpage. Hence, the major problem is only when there is a dichotomy between the views of the owners and that of the users. By being open, we can eliminate such a dichotomy and completely abolish this kind of censorship
Let me also clarify that one user cannot delete the other users’ post. Thanks for bringing up some interesting points.
You can’t digg in the middle of the road.
don’t forget that legal issues are what drives moderation on most sites – open ugc v. copyright law is still a big issue to be resolved
AND
who wants spam on a site?
Yeah, there are some things that we cannot legally allow. But at least if the resources are open, then we can move to the most liberal country in the world. At least, in that way, it is better than other sites.
And even if we get sued, the community and the code still exists and so, I guess we can always start a new site . But honestly, I don’t completely understand the legal issues surrounding non-profits and community ownership, so I can’t really say much about the situation if we get sued. Any lawyers out there, do post a comment if you know something about this.
Regarding spam, we definitely have to find a way to block spam besides the standard techniques like CAPTCHA. It is a sensitive issue but due to open management, the users have a say in how we will handle spam so we will not end up blocking/censoring content that is not genuinely spam.
Pingback: links for 2007-12-07 at iJump.co.nz
The only reason digg became big is because kevin rose was on tech tv.
So, let’s get together and do this. Email me, let’s get everyone together, create some sort of group, and start working through all of the issues.
Pingback: Simple. « chimney