There are rumors of Ron Paul supporters manipulating Digg. I’ve got the names and the evidence.
A funny thing happened last month. I wrote a blog post about the history of Digg.com as part of my study of the social bookmarking site. Normally when posting, my entries receive little to no response on Digg, which is fine since it’s hardly viral stuff. When I posted the “history” blog, however, I received a whopping 17 diggs, a number I had never reached with this blog before.
Realizing that something must be up, I did a little investigating. To my surprise, the majority of people that dugg my post were supporters of Republican Congressman from Texas Ron Paul, a Libertarian and presidential candidate.
When I say “Ron Paul supporters,” I mean that these people ONLY digg stories about Ron Paul, and many of them don’t read the actual content of submissions. My “history” post had Ron Paul’s name in the title (Digg Dirt: From the Digg Army to Ron Paul) but had only the minutest mention of him in the article – I referenced how a push from Digg may have resulted in him getting on the Daily show. The piece itself had NOTHING to do with Ron Paul!
So why the Diggs? Who are these people? The “Ron Paul Army” has a very strong and unified presence on Digg, but no one calls them out on it – at least not on the individual level. Ron Paulers are organized and networked. They are “friends” on Digg. Their mission: Digg every story with even a slight mention of Ron Paul in order to keep his name in the public eye. How can I say that? RyanUnderdown.com has done a pretty good job of cataloging memos related to the planned Digg manipulation. Check them out here.
Paul’s critics at RadioLeft.com explain Paul’s popularity on Digg.com thusly:
“The unlikely arc of Ron Paul's rise to popularity on Digg is interesting, because this is a case where the alleged wisdom of crowds is now shaping the public debate... It also should be noted that the early focus of Digg was on technology, and that the prevailing view of its users is that they are tech savvy, educated, and lean politically to the center-left if anywhere at all. The increasing number of political stories on the front page is a relatively recent development, and many Digg users may not be familiar with what political sites have credibility.”
Now, I have no opinions on Paul’s political platform nor do I have any political agenda of my own. I merely seek to point out that what Ron Paul’s supporters and active campaigners are doing is wrong for the following 2 reasons:
1) Collusion is a violation of Digg.com’s Terms of Service.
2) Agenda bloggers, in this case agenda diggers, must engage in transparency or full disclosure in order to ensure ethical practices.
The first is easy to prove. Article 3 Section 9 in Digg’s Terms of Service states:
By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree not to use the Services:
A group of networked Ron Paul supporters with enough votes to get a Ron Paul story out of the Upcoming Stories bin every time (an action that requires around 12-15 diggs) is most certainly “artificially altering” the results.
The second point is a little harder to demonstrate. Without transparency, there is no accountability, and people can be misled by bias or unverified sources. This is why we explain who we are in blogs and link to our sources. It’s the only way to be sure that we’re accountable to the public for our actions. Perhaps this instance will clarify:
A digg user “mstebbins” submits the entry Ron Paul Army Engage to Digg. The referenced article is this one from StudentsForPaul.org posted by Jeff Frazee. The problem: “mstebbins” and Frazee are part of the same circle of Ron Paul diggers, submitting Paul-related entries and actively promoting their candidate. On Digg, however, their profiles make no mention of their political agenda. In fact, the only thing listed in Jeff Frazee’s profile is his handle “jefffrazee.” If he wanted his diggs to be reputable concerning his active agenda, then he should list the political blog for which he posts in his profile. By the way, mstebbins is really Marianne Stebbins, Libertarian Party member "10 years ago or so" and author of the Paul blog On Scribbler's Mind. Perhaps she should have mentioned that on Digg.
Most of the Ron Paul supporters’ real identities can be found by searching Libertarian Meetup Groups and comparing Digg names. Many use a first initial and last name as a handle. None reference their own political blogs or agendas.
This type of organization may keep Ron Paul’s name on Digg and in RSS feeds, but it also creates Digg spam and blog spam. Resistance Intelligencer wrote an excellent post about Ron Paul, Digg, Spam and everything. By pushing up agenda articles, the group is undermining the democratic purpose of social bookmarking. Digg has received a fair amount of accusations as to whether it is truly democratic. If the Top User debacle last year failed to demonstrate Digg’s vulnerability to collusion and the herd effect, then the Ron Paul manipulation surely shows the site’s lack of democracy – ironic considering this is being done for political reasons.
The Ron Paul web manipulation is not limited to Digg either. Ron Paul is the number one search term for blogs. He has the most subscribers on Youtube. Ron Paul has the most friends on Myspace, Friendster and Facebook. He has won every single Internet straw poll (his supporters use bots to vote multiple times). The problem is that his web popularity does not translate to real world popularity. His fame is a product of online spammers alone.
Obviously, the man has some support to sustain this kind of guerrilla campaign, and I’m not here to dispute his political strategies. Clearly, his tactics, although unethical, are working. Supporters have pushed him into prominent interviews with everyone from Joe Scarborough to Jon Stewart and got him into the Iowa Debate. Even the tactic itself has drawn press; just look at what Wired wrote about Paul.
Not playing within the rules of social media, however, is inexcusable. Masquerading as genuine Digg Users (as well as MySpace. Facebook, YouTube, and Friendster users) in order to influence others is not ethical. It is schilling. If mass manipulation is the weapon of choice for the Paul camp, then I hope it does not translate to the methods of the man himself.
What follows is a list of 30 Digg Users that are bonafide Ron Paul spammers. If your name is on this list, it is because you are networked in to all of the other Ron Paul spammers, do not link to the Ron Paul blog for which you write, and/or Digg Ron Paul-related stories almost exclusively:
1. mstebbins
2. skyorbit
3. AlexLibman
4. FuzzyBall
5. megaman83
6. badfish0116
7. kfed2
8. chessmasterjoe
9. Jeff Frazee
10. thunt
11. Elwar
12. CPMan
13. phenry
14. bwigfield
15. FunkBuddha
16. Scrotchety
17. Libertarian4321
18. gypsynuke
19. goldorakdan
20. badfrog
21. saynotoslavery
22. BuddyRey
23. zdotz
24. thebutangjedi
25. rictek
26. rprev08
27. pkeith
28. Churchill2004
29. earthdome
30. MichaelElliot
I’m all for freedom of political expression, but it must be done ethically and without the intent to mislead one’s audience. Even guerrilla campaigns need to keep it clean.
| Posted to: |
Okay I admit it, I work for Apple. Apple paid me $10.000 to digg all iPhone stories I could find. It's all part of a huge scheme to take over the world for the Illuminati. I swear it's true.
My town has had 2 hundred-year floods in as many years, I've had a stone frog left outside and turned into dust from acid rain over the past 3 years, and Ron Paul doesn't think anything is going on with climate change? Bullshit. Ron Paul thinks that killing "don't ask, don't tell" would be a social experiment? Bullshit. The only appeal the guy has to me is that he's for pulling my brother in law and cousins out of Iraq, and that he would like to reform the tax system (which I really wonder if he could do with H&R Block lobbying congress).
The iPhone is a completely different story. Curiosity about emerging technologies is an inherent property of computer geeks.
And how is acid rain related to climate change? Acid rain's main source is from coal burning power plants who do not meet clean air criteria. Look at the entire state of Pennsylvania for god's sakes. Hundreds of thousands of acres of trees with no leaves being burned alive by acid rain coming from power plants in north eastern ohio. And hey guess what, it isnt carbon dioxide that causes acid rain.
On top of that, what you say is out of context. Ron paul has never said that there isn't a pollution problem. I've only heard him state (and numerous times) that he doubts man made global warming. No one disputes climate change, there is climate change, it has been changing for millions of years, and will continue doing so.
Btw, the #1 green house gas is WATER VAPOR.
Maybe you should join us "computer geeks" and pick up a book.... And read it...
Am I supporting Hillary when I Dig a story about her but don't read it at that moment? No. You are fundamentally viewing digg.com's purpose from a very narrow viewpoint of how you feel the site should be used.
Just like any other web 2.0 application, different users use the site differently - read "Getting Real" by 37Signals - specifically why they didn't have to add a category feature to their to-do list application.
Also, you can not deny that Ron Paul has support (which is what you are trying to do here) when he has more people showing up in person than at nationally televised media opportunities that specifically banned him.
Seriously, you guys are lame. Who in their right mind asserts that tech savvy computer geeks lean center-left politically? WTF? Braindead.
about Bush being impeached
That's not the "liberal" slant, it's the SANE slant. He has violated his oath of office many times over, and that's EXACTLY what impeachment is for, Bubba. Bush is NOT above the law.
It's not about left and right, it's about Right and Wrong. Take the flag off your SUV and be a real patriot by learning American history from a BOOK, and not TV.
And, as an ancap, I'm waaaay more conservative than you, bro. Ron Paul is the only candidate that is even remotely acceptable, and in fact he's eminently desirable.
VOTE PAUL
Ron Paul is a frickin libertarian under the Republican name.
I had never heard of Digg before I read stories about how Ron Paul was big on it. Since it was precisely because I wanted to observe this phenomenon that I went to Digg in the first place, it's only natural that a review of my Digg history will show that I digg posts that are positive about Paul and bury those that are negative.
There's nothing unethical about it at all. It reflects my actual preferences. You seem to be saying that there's something wrong with the fact that I'm expressing my preference, even though social media is supposed to be about expressing preference.
The only definition of a "genuine Digg user" that seems possible to me is "someone who signed up for Digg". I'd probably be amused to see you attempt to come up with a different definition.
Unless I'm using dualies to inflate my influence, if I sign up for Digg, I'm a "genuine Digg user". Period.
i don't digg much, but damnit, ron paul is the best thing for our country. so, yes, i'll will digg anything that supports him.
i think the author of this blog underestimates just how much support ron paul really does have.
1) In my experience, the Ron Paul diggers who are 'organized', and I use that term loosely, actively spend time burying duplicate and cheezy no-content articles. They recognize that there is a problem and have made efforts to mitigate them. The blind-digging, from what I can tell is not from the organized folks but from lone-wolf supporters who aren't interested in the greater good but simply ram-rodding through an agenda without a care as to the detrimental effect of their methods. The exception to this rule would be when an 'important' article comes out and gets buried out of hand, then there is sometimes a concerted effort to override what is apparently an 'organized' effort to suppress anything and everything Paul-related.
2) On that note, I think it's a bit unfair to not show the other side of the coin here. There are indeed people working actively to bury Ron Paul related material. Some of this is certainly blowback, but some of it could probably be termed as with nefarious intent. Case in point... I've submitted several Ron Paul articles and the diggs do not match my logs... i.e. blind digging... but neither do the buries. I've even had articles where I've watched on digg spy 20 buries come in yet my logs show that I've had zero hits on that page. I'm not going to lean either way here, because both sides are to blame, I just think it's important to show that there is another side.
3) Digging only articles about a certain topic is no crime. The fluff that comes through digg for the most part, for many people, has little merit whatsoever. There are also plenty of other sub cultures who have an equally narrow news vision and nobody is pointing any fingers at them. In fairness, those should be pointed out or this point should itself be left out.
Anyhow, I think you've hit on some good points here, but I also think you only present one side of the argument. Perhaps another article to present the other side might be in order? In any case, I judge this digg worthy.
And thanks for giving me a jolly ol' ROFLMAO. My many GOP friends are going to give me a hard time for being a "Libertarian Party member for the past 10 years," when in fact I was "LP member 10 years ago or so" but not since.
I have to confess, I don't know any of the people you list, but they sound like good folk, and I'd love to meet them someday.
In the meantime, here's a little video on Blowback for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSpm8Qs0u1o
How can I become a member?
How many diggs are needed to join?
oh no! I'm a victim of Ron Paul’s Social Media Manipulation
HELP ME!
I don't understand the thinking here since people digg what they personally have an interest in. 20000 meetup members it's easy to see how Ron Paul articles are dug to the top. People have a sincere interest and it's no stickly Libertarian
Get a life.
In fact, its such a good reply, I'm gonna go Digg your reply and have all my friends digg it too, just cuz this page has Ron Paul on it.
You think that's because of spammers? lol... Nope. We're regular folks...
So it really shouldn't come as much of a surprise that some people, independently, read digg (possibly even exclusively) for Ron Paul coverage, since it's relatively frequent compared to mainstream media outlets.
Then they attack you
Then you win
second: hmmm, maybe I should try the same tactics, but for Barack Obama... nah, he doesn't need a lame army of losers on digg, he's running the most successful grassroots campaign in history based on merit and this thing called "talking to constituents"
Must have been so excited to break this stupid scoop that he couldn't bother to spell check the TITLE of his own article.
But more importantly, sometimes I have even not dugg articles about RP just so people wouldn't have me to point at. That's a bit of a wrinkle I'd say.
Ron Paul is like christianity (I'm laughing as I write this but think it is a good comparison) don't judge him by his 'followers,' judge him by who he his. And he will give you eternal life. (okay I'm kidding about that part.)
The "Bury Ron Paul" movement:
http://buryronpaul.blogspot.com/
Anyways my point is that I miss the days when digg was all about promoting tech and grassroot geek ideas instead pushing political and religious agendas
Name recognition... Puhlease. I like Ron Paul and even I associate his name with net spam thanks to you losers. Good job dumbasses, way to overdo it.
You can see the list of people who dugg it here : http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_mobile_website_for_those_in_need_of_local_resources/who
And the strange thing is that there is no mention of Ron Paul - even slightly in the article - it is about a mobile service for finding toilets!
I find myself using Digg less and less because at any given time half the front page stories are about that irrelevant loon. If Digg continues to allow itself to be gamed by a tiny fringe political movement (if you can call it that at all), it leaves itself open to a competitor with better controls. Are you listening, Digg?
Oh, and I see the RP zombies are out in force in your comments section proving your point - this happens every time a blog posts a story with "Ron Paul" in the title (ref: LGF).
also, where does it say that people have to digg many types of stories? Its not digg gaming, its just very avid supporters of ron paul...
Talk about manipulation.
Advertising = Propaganda.
Watch the Century of Self if you don't believe me.
I don't want Ron Sansone or the members of the Anti-Ron Paul Spammers League (ARPSL) to assert that *all* Ron Paul supporters are spammers and we should in turn not assume that Ron Sansone necessarily has ulterior motives.
ThinkProgress' Manipulation of Digg
Unfortunately, Dig does not seem to care when political operatives violate their TOS.
For the record I am a 42 year-old mother of four and I have no connection to any Ron Paul support or spam group. I simply like his ideology. I often look on Digg for articles on Ron Paul and if they are positive I digg them. I've never text messaged anyone in my life, until the Fox news poll, when I texted in my vote for Dr. Paul. There may be a few dozen Ron Paul supporters that work actively to support him online, but I believe there are more people out here like me than anyone cares to realize. Surely Guiliani or Romney with all their millions in donations could hire twice as many staffers to spam whatever site or poll they wanted. Do you really expect anyone to believe that these other politicians are too ethical to do that and Ron Paul isn't...come on...that's laughable. If anything the only reason pro Guiliani stories aren't dugg up is because he hasn't focused his vast financial resources, or any resources, on gaining influence in the online communities. If Dr. Paul's supporters are purposefully digging up pro Paul stories it is because they respect the online communities and see their potential power. So really you're trying to discredit the one candidate that takes you seriously.
Ron Paul you have my vote.
This is a democracy. Anyone on the ballot has a chance, unless people start believing what we are told. I hate that. So I will continue to dig RP stories.
Bite me.
I'm sure you're going to do all you can to make sure Ron Paul stories from now on get buried.
But that's fair, and definitely isn't media manipulation.
Get a life.
First it was the Ron Paul Five, now it's the Ron Paul Thirty, how far will anti-rp forces go before they realize they're feeding the fire they're trying to stop? Learn how to join a group that doesn't exist and how advocating support for a political candidate in America can get you put on some list. Maybe next time it'll be you.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_Digg_Army_how_to_join_a_group_that_does_not_exist
You moralizing diatribe about people telling their business on digg and their political agenda. If a person only diggs Ron Paul stories and commonts only on Ron Paul stories, do you need a bigger hint they are Pro-Ron Paul. It's not like all these people are paid by the RP campaign. What is a genuine Digger? This is such a plastic term, its like who in your opinion is cool or not.
I also find your exhortations to Democracy laughable. Really, if a person get the most voters to the polls does not that person deserve to win. I use "get" in the figurative sense, in that inspire people to do things, unlike the rest of the Republican candidates who just want money and hardly have grassroots. Most Republicans I see are wonder 'well who doesnt suck?' The anti-war, small government types have their choice= RON PAUL.
Besides getting 12% in the California Republican Straw Poll, placing second in the Utah Republican Staw Poll, getting over a 1000 people to attend a conference in Des Moines last Saturday. The massive outpouring of support in New Hampshire. It's really just a cabal of 30-40 people on Digg? LOL @ you.
Do we think those things make the tops of the lists just because people are "generally interested"? Not a chance. IMPLICIT COLLUSION.
*Anti-MS people group up and pounce on any Ubuntu article.
*Nintenboi's digg up articles about how terribly the PS3 is/was doing.
*Iphone this, Iphone that...
*And pro/anti politician diggs are everywhere.
So it's not surprising that the same people implicitly group up to support any article that may benefit the recognition of their man/product/ideology. ("Any press is good press.")
Of course, if you're a fan of something that you're digging, it is simply impossible to believe that the thing you like is being dugg because of collusion, as opposed to everyone "just loving it". Ha.
I would like to welcome all of you to our blog. I just want to point out that if you look at
1. The nature of this blog: An open discussion of professional online communications, and...you will see that the actual point of the discussion has less to do with Mr. Paul or his candidacy than it has to do with the muddying of the waters of the blogosphere. Various groups have co-opted the tools of Internet social networking for their own ends. Is this bad or good? That's what we're here to discuss.
2. The keywords the author chose for his post: Website, PR, online, Industry, ethics
The real point is that we need to examine the information we find on Digg and other folksonomy sites as skeptically as we read our newspapers. Perhaps even more so.
Morty
A lot of us, who have been on the site well before this whole Ron Paul mess, agree with you and don't like it one bit.
Nice try. I doubt Ron Paul would endorse manipulation of Digg if someone told him it was happening. The fact that some of his supporters are a bit obsessive is not lost on the rest of us (recall the latest Ron Paul excluded from Iowa Taxpayers & Christian Alliance Club candidate's forum). I will concede that it's possible that there are a few bad eggs out there who use multiple accounts to "spam" Ron Paul stories, but I see no proof of it with this article.
I appreciate the list of Ron Paul supporters though, I will add them to my friends list. If some of them turn out to be gaming the system their accounts will undoubtedly be deleted.
Constanze
"and got him into the Iowa Debate"
If you are referring to the Tax Relief Forum this past weekend, he was not invited.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Digg_Dirt_From_the_Digg
That submission now only has 7 diggs. I would think this means that at least ten of the people who dugg it were banned.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a Revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Unfortunately for the writer he thinks there's some sort of "organization" going on here...I'm sure that's his first instinct because he's probably used to other organizations or communes or whatever the term they might use. Individualists do things on their own. I am on that list not because of some organization or organized effort. I am on that list because I as an individual like to go onto digg.com to find the latest information on Ron Paul. When I see a good article about Ron Paul I digg it. I also go to many other sources for Ron Paul information, digg is just one of many so don't feel so high and mighty. I work for the government so I have a lot of time on my hands during work.
Digg is getting my traffic because of Ron Paul. Otherwise I would have never even heard of the site.
It is terrific that you're exposing the truth. There really aren't any Ron Paul supporters on the internet or anywhere else. In fact, only about 3 of the comments here are made be anyone other than me. And of the 12 listed above, I am 11 of them. My primary user is 'demidog' on digg and you can find my conspiracy headquarters here.
Please source the following:
"...and many of them don’t read the actual content of submissions."
"...(his supporters use bots to vote multiple times)"
"Clearly, his tactics, although unethical, are working."
"...and got him into the Iowa Debate."
He was not invited to the Iowa Debate, he did the NH and SC debates.
Clearly your either misinformed or biased.
Regular people use digg, too.
Do you think a "bot" or some lame dude with too much time on his hands wrote all these posts saying how they are regular usesr of digg just like you, and digg the things they are interested in, just like you?
Do you get it yet? You could not be more wrong. Ron Paul is popular on Digg.com because Ron Paul is popular, especially popular among the younger generations who use the internet to get most of their news.
The only conspiracy is in your head. I digg Ron Paul stories because I like to read Ron Paul, and I come to digg to read what the stories are about Ron Paul, among other things. Get a clue.
Get a life. Maybe these people just liked your article. And why are you getting so proud of 17 diggs? I think you need to take a step back and refocus all this negative-ness of yours into something more constructive than bashing people for digging stories that they like.
pathetic.
The "Digg" feature is L-A-M-E.
Most of those people are not lazy or stupid, they are politically depressed - they don't want a left-wing slave-master or a right-wing slave-master, they just want the government out of their lives! But they know the game is rigged, so why bother trying?
Now that, for once, there is a viable presidential candidate who speaks for those people, who has what it takes to rally them (along with the "lesser of two evils" voters) into a powerful political base - the mainstream is trying to sweep them under the carpet more fiercely than ever before!
The two-headed RepubliCratic party will call us all sorts of things: one-percenters, spammers, freaks, even terrorists... (Very reminiscent of how other one-party states deal with their political opponents. Make no mistake about it, there's now more disagreement and genuine debate behind the closed doors of the Chinese Communist Party than in our three-CSPAN circus!)
The political elite is desperate to keep us from realizing our own strength, to maintain the illusion that we're just a bunch of pot-head phreaks and spammers conspiring in some Berkeley computer lab, or whatever image they're trying to paint. If that false stereotype is ever debunked, the avalanche of support for Ron Paul will become unstoppable!
I am a supporter of Ron Paul and will do whatever I can to get him elected. I do not think that digging a story about Ron Paul is immoral or wrong in any way. It is not only my right ,but I believe ,my duty to do whatever I can to get our country back from the people who have taken it over. I believe that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and we are not following it at all.
Why do people keep calling me a spammer? What I write and post is in no way spam.
http://www.gop.com/RegisterToVote/
Dude. What the hell.
STEVE O'KEEFE
STEVE
If he was so popular, he would have a higher rating all around than any other candidate in history.
Gee. tell me a bit more how to do this stuff so I can get my name on the list too! As a fervent supporter I have been lax in not spamming the bookmarking sites, I admit it, but you have inspired me to new heights of activism - thanks.
TrackBack URL:
http://www.iaocblog.com/blog/_trackback/3068799