As with T-Rex, so too with Ticked-off users

Remember Jurassic Park (the first one) when they were creating only female dinosaurs (or were they creating only male ones?) and then they found eggs for itty-bitty baby dinosaurs? I remember well the scientist saying...

"nature finds a way."

They were talking of how, against the odds and given no way to procreate, those critters figured out a way to do just that. After all, animals--all species, actually--are rather clever and determined when they want what they want. In this case they wanted survival. But in the case of some very angry Digg users, they wanted a voice (since they're always given a vote).

And you know what? Ticked-off users find a way, too.

In the VERY interesting story about some very ticked-off Digg users, that Paul details here--really, go here as I'm about 10-minutes new to this story--it seems that management at the oh-so-democratic site Digg, where users vote on the popularity of the articles, had to delete an article from its front page. In all fairness to Digg, the article needed to be removed because it revealed some code to crack HD-DVDs. But in all fairness to the users...after Digg removed the article and uploaded a post to its blog, the aforementioned, oh-so-democratic Digg site turned-off comments on its blog. Or its blog doesn't take comments. D'oh!

Now users are "digging" stories revealing the code in their own (creative!) way by voting on stories citing the HD-DVD code to get them to the front page. As soon as Digg can take them down...users are uploading them. Hmm, using the site's own technology to be heard--now ain't that Poetic Justice 2.0? (no wonder Paul knew this story would pull at my heartstrings).

All of this is far better explained--with pictures to boot!--by my pal Paul over here. You guys should be going there as Paul knows the scoop. I only know about dinosaurs (and loaner cameras). But I do know that every user should get a voice. Otherwise they get angry like T-Rex up there.

Note: There's been an interesting update to the story...looks like someone caved. Could it be company or users?  Stay tuned.

Comments

[Matt Dickman]

You would think that by now companies would know that closing off users and censoring content only leads to more headache and bad press. This is especially true when your target audience is a group of people who are a) tech savvy and b) thrive on the open nature of the Net to keep you in business. *sigh*

[Paul McEnany]

I love this story so much. It's web 2.0 user rebellion at its finest.

And, I love the Jurrasic Park analogy, too. The perfect way to describe it, I think.

The only unfortunate thing will be the end of digg as we know it. I feel the mass exodus coming. But where will they go? Reddit? Netscape? Hmmm...

[Mario Vellandi]

They won't go anywhere else. If they do, they'll lose their stats, pseudo community "cred", and may lose their username.

Digg is not a publication. They shouldn't fear reprisal...it's users who submit the content and links. They should've acted to protect freedom of information and only have removed the story if they received an injunction. At that point, Diggers would've acted the same as today...sans the vindication.