<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wired buys votes on Digg, Arrington calls for lawsuit?!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://joeduck.com/2007/03/01/wired-buys-votes-on-digg-arrington-calls-for-lawsuit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://joeduck.com/2007/03/01/wired-buys-votes-on-digg-arrington-calls-for-lawsuit/</link>
	<description>Have Blog. Will Travel.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:54:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fools Gold</title>
		<link>http://joeduck.com/2007/03/01/wired-buys-votes-on-digg-arrington-calls-for-lawsuit/#comment-20545</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fools Gold]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 11:25:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeduck.wordpress.com/2007/03/01/wired-buys-votes-on-digg-arrington-calls-for-lawsuit/#comment-20545</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;...Reporting news is one thing (although they should note the conflict of interest there as well), but actively creating negative news about a competitor and then using the massive reach of Wired to promote that “news” is way over the line. ...&quot;
I don&#039;t see how such things are unexpected: Naked Shortsellers often create or actively spread bad news about some stock they&#039;ve shorted, online camera-store sites employ massive numbers of &#039;canaries&#039; to sing their praises, ebay merchants create &#039;trustworthiness ratings&#039;. Interested parties often make meaningless edits in posts to keep certain topics &#039;on the front page&#039;.

Social groups have cadres dedicated to manipulation wherever there is trust.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;Reporting news is one thing (although they should note the conflict of interest there as well), but actively creating negative news about a competitor and then using the massive reach of Wired to promote that “news” is way over the line. &#8230;&#8221;<br />
I don&#8217;t see how such things are unexpected: Naked Shortsellers often create or actively spread bad news about some stock they&#8217;ve shorted, online camera-store sites employ massive numbers of &#8216;canaries&#8217; to sing their praises, ebay merchants create &#8216;trustworthiness ratings&#8217;. Interested parties often make meaningless edits in posts to keep certain topics &#8216;on the front page&#8217;.</p>
<p>Social groups have cadres dedicated to manipulation wherever there is trust.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J. Alan Hendricks</title>
		<link>http://joeduck.com/2007/03/01/wired-buys-votes-on-digg-arrington-calls-for-lawsuit/#comment-20543</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[J. Alan Hendricks]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:47:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeduck.wordpress.com/2007/03/01/wired-buys-votes-on-digg-arrington-calls-for-lawsuit/#comment-20543</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have to agree with you Joe...but why are you paying for traffic?...I only use free services..search engines and such and get my share...

A free anything is the best anything at that time....]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to agree with you Joe&#8230;but why are you paying for traffic?&#8230;I only use free services..search engines and such and get my share&#8230;</p>
<p>A free anything is the best anything at that time&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JoeDuck</title>
		<link>http://joeduck.com/2007/03/01/wired-buys-votes-on-digg-arrington-calls-for-lawsuit/#comment-20541</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JoeDuck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 06:24:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeduck.wordpress.com/2007/03/01/wired-buys-votes-on-digg-arrington-calls-for-lawsuit/#comment-20541</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Baron I have not been following this &quot;Wired vs Digg&quot; thing until now so I agree - what&#039;s the big deal here?  It would be more scandalous to me if Wired had *suppressed* this story as Mike seems to think they should have done.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Baron I have not been following this &#8220;Wired vs Digg&#8221; thing until now so I agree &#8211; what&#8217;s the big deal here?  It would be more scandalous to me if Wired had *suppressed* this story as Mike seems to think they should have done.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: baron</title>
		<link>http://joeduck.com/2007/03/01/wired-buys-votes-on-digg-arrington-calls-for-lawsuit/#comment-20540</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[baron]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 04:49:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeduck.wordpress.com/2007/03/01/wired-buys-votes-on-digg-arrington-calls-for-lawsuit/#comment-20540</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree with you.  Plus why is everyone selectively ignoring the fact that the reporter asked the Digg CEO before she did it?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you.  Plus why is everyone selectively ignoring the fact that the reporter asked the Digg CEO before she did it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

