Wired buys votes on Digg, Arrington calls for lawsuit?!

This story at Wired Magazine is a fascinating glimpse into manipulating social media.    Mike Arrington isn’t impressed though, and suggests Digg should sue Wired because Wired owns Digg competitor Reddit.com.

I don’t agree, and frankly would love to see hundreds more of these “sting” operations which help everybody understand the challenges facing social media and hopefully will pressure sites to clean up the fraudulent stuff going on.

Mike’s right to point out the conflict of interest issue and everybody in this biz could use a transparency injection, but overall we need *hundreds* of times more investigative “sting operations” to show how problematic things have become with payola of various kinds, PPC, and other online scams like Ringtones.

The best response for Digg is to do an insider investigation and root out the abuses and publish it themselves, not pretend it doesn’t go on as they and Mike appear to be suggesting.   Violation of the DIGG TOS by Wired reporter does NOT mean the study isn’t valid.  These are almost entirely separate issues.

Soon I’m hoping to publish my own expose of PPC scams –  I’m trying to get Enhance.com‘s attention right now about the bogus traffic I’ve been paying for and will soon publish the list of the sites from my logs over the past year. If enough of us did that it would go a long way to help clean things up.

4 thoughts on “Wired buys votes on Digg, Arrington calls for lawsuit?!

  1. Baron I have not been following this “Wired vs Digg” thing until now so I agree – what’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.

  2. 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….

  3. “…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. …”
    I don’t see how such things are unexpected: Naked Shortsellers often create or actively spread bad news about some stock they’ve shorted, online camera-store sites employ massive numbers of ‘canaries’ to sing their praises, ebay merchants create ‘trustworthiness ratings’. Interested parties often make meaningless edits in posts to keep certain topics ‘on the front page’.

    Social groups have cadres dedicated to manipulation wherever there is trust.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s