Digg Revolt Shows Need to Temper Majority Rule in Web 2.0
Many of the articles and posts I've read on the Digg/HD-DVD encryption story sound as polarized as American politics these days. In some cases this is either a victory of a "power to the people" movement or it's mob rule. It's neither, we're not talking about the French Revolution here, so let's pull the discussion back from the hyperbole makers.
This is fundamentally is a question of who gets to control private or confidential information but the story is clouded by a subplot. The Digg story has a David and Golieth element because many people don't like DRM and this is a chance for the little guy to get back at the corporate behemoths. So let's change the plot, and imagine instead of HD-DVD encryption key, it was someone social security number or bank account number. Does the owner of the number get to decide where it is published or does the community of Internet users?
The Digg example seems to indicate that if a majority, or even a determined minority, wants to publish the information it will. The New York Times says
"its relentless spread has already become a lesson in mob power on the Internet and the futility of censorship in the digital world."
And in User revolt at Digg.com shows risks of Web 2.0 we hear:
Digg's problems this week are just the latest example of Web 2.0 growing pains. Wikipedia is routinely buffeted by inaccurate or self-serving information, while YouTube is flooded with pirated videos.
OK, inaccurate information we can handle. Wikipedia is a good model for how the group can collectively correct errors much of the time. But when we have conflicting interests, like publishing something will make money for me but at your expense, who is to decide? In the "real" world, we have laws, minority rights, privacy legislation, etc. These seem to have been forgotten in the David and Golieth story of Digg. From the NYT article,
Chris Sprigman, an associate professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, said that under the digital copyright act, propagating even parts of techniques intended to circumvent copyright was illegal.
So laws are there (which are liked as much as DRM), but ignored because some don't like them. Have groups of Internet users become the new "Deciders"?
Email This!
Digg it!
Sphere it!
Del.icio.us
Reddit!
Newsvine
