Digg Community Responds to Change.org CR Efforts

In writing the piece "Is Digg Sexist?" yesterday, I certainly got a lot more attention than I was expecting.

Over 600 diggs. Over 400 comments. Several mentions within the blogosphere - including Jezebel, Feministing and Real Clear Politics. Oh yeah, and a counter argument to my post, with a side of bacon.

Perhaps the most encouraging moment from the consciousness raising (CR) effort about the site's seemingly misogynistic nature was a private apology by a Digg user:

Well, I saw your post on Digg.

I'd just like to say that I apologize. I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else. I'm not at all sexist....

I'm an idiot for not having better judgment, and looking at the submission I see exactly why it is offensive, disrespectful, and wrong.

I know your post was directed at the community as a whole, but I appologize if I contributed to any sexist agenda at all on Digg.

The race for Diggs is brutal. The submissions made popular do indeed speak for the community. But in defense of the community, it was most probably dugg out of humor, not sexism. Though humor of this nature may possibly represent a corrupt sense of humor, it is moreso a representation of digg's immaturity than it's sexism against women.

By challenging the Digg community about it's motives, I learned a lot about how the online community operates and how it chooses to defend itself. I learned that there are people on Digg who are doing the right thing, while there are others who choose to follow the flock and use the anonymity of the internet to participate in a culture they would never engage with in the real world.

Initially when I wrote the piece, I didn't even expect it to get voted up Digg at all. The piece was never about how many Diggs I could get; it was never about a traffic boost or being "link bait."

It was about staring sexism straight in the face and saying - I won't let you intimidate me. It was about consciousness raising - a central tenet to the feminist movement. It was about taking a small action in the hope of greater change.

In the end - my question about whether or not Digg is sexist did just what I hoped - it raised the consciousness of the seemingly sexist nature of the social news site.

Here are some of the more enlightening conclusions from this effort:

Sexist Digg Users Does Not a Sexist Site Digg Make?

I got a lot of feedback from male and female users who said that while there are many immature, offensive remarks on Digg that can appear to be sexist, racist, homophobic - these individuals are not representative of the whole.

Commentator B D disagreed with my post, but explained his point of view well:

The answer to your question is of course no. It's not Digg that is sexist, but those Digg readers who post the dumb comments. Just remember that the most frequent commenters on those kind of sites are the ones who spend their lives posting moronic comments because they have no other life. They are not representative of all society, at least that's the way I think about it. You get one idiot who posts a dumb comment and the rest follow him (yes, it's always him) like sheep.

While I do agree to an extent - I do not think it is enough to push the blame elsewhere. For those users who say they aren't sexist, then you must stand up for equality. You can't sit back and let sexist or racist or homophobic comments or actions happens. Not online and not in the real world. You need to be the change you wish to see in the world. Excusing yourself from the larger group, won't create the accountability that Digg needs.

Anonymity Breeds Irresponsibility; Internet Transparency Will Create Greater Accountability

Within this social media experiment, I also got first hand experience with the Greater Internet FuckWad Theory.

In order to make Digg less sexist, it requires that the site's users become more transparent about who they are. As seen in the apology above and many of the comments - the anonymity of the internet allows seemingly normal people to act in a manner that is several notches below their typical integrity (aka the Internet Fuckwad Theory). The fight against sexism on sites such as Digg or YouTube will have to happen in tandem with the fight for greater transparency of user profiles. Until then - few can be held accountable for their actions and words.

Bill Hodgson summarized this idea quite well in his comment:

I agree with this specific analysis of comments on Digg - if Digg were a conversation in your front room - you wouldn't be sharing such a picture, nor making the sexist comments featured. The fact that this is on-line, allows this behaviour, the same way it's easy to write in emails things you wouldn't say to someone's face.

If Digg is to appeal to a wider audience, the site needs to find a way to focus on mainstream views and topics, or else become a virtual "back street" unwelcome to a mainstream audience.

Some of the content on Diggnation is squarely sexist too - Alex in particular making comments about other women whilst proudly advertising his engagement to Heather. Somehow passing comment on women he would like to bang, Alex seems to miss the point of being committed to someone else.

Lisa Smolen-Jenkins, who is a frequent commentator on my blog, made another smart point:

People get very brave online, slinging insults that they probably wouldn't say to someone's face. It makes me wonder if their wives, sisters, mothers, girlfriends, et al, knew they were saying these things what would happen?.

And within the Digg comment thread itself, a rare moment of clarity from ebjerstedt:

When you publicly post a sexist comment on Digg, anyone can read it, and lots of people do. Plenty of 13 year-old boys who haven't formed their opinions on feminism or sexism read Digg. When they see a sexist comment, they don't get that it's sarcastic (the dumb ones), and they see your comment as condoning sexism.

In that sense, any sexist comment posted on Digg, sarcastic or not, implicitly condones sexism because some people will take it to condone sexism. Do what you want, but this is true. No amount of self-important Digg user posturing can change this.

Think about what you say before you beg for your all-important lulz, troll

In my opinion - the anonymity of the internet may be to blame for some of the sexist remarks. However, that is no excuse for them.

Content Is Still King - But Offensive Comments Are Unnecessary and Harmful

Generally speaking, I do accept the idea that certain content shouldn't make the front page of Digg if it doesn't interest the audience. However, I will never agree with the offensive comments that seem follow in response that content. It is one thing to engage in the "democratic" nature of the site by voting content up or down, however, the female-bashing and juvenile comments are completely unnecessary.

Help Other Social News Sites Succeed

A few individuals such as May Evans said that I might want to consider using other social news sites instead of Digg such as Mixx.com, Reddit or Stumble Upon:

I haven't used Digg for reasons like this ever since I found Mixx.com which is much more female, feminist and lgbt friendly. I recommend it.

While I think it is important to cultivate a presence on these sites as well as Digg - walking away from the site won't solve the problems at hand. Digg still serves as a gatekeeper for many ideas to be recognized within the blogosphere. It's not just about traffic. It's about the agenda setting that goes along with the site. In order to make an impact with issue advocacy - such as women's rights - content needs to seen and heard by the larger blogger community and Digg certainly helps make this happen. Confronting the community and trying to make it better is the right thing to do, in addition to working to create greater influence on other sites as well.

***

In conclusion - I hope that my challenge to the Digg community can be embraced, rather than buried. I hope that the site can keep working toward a more favorable environment for all users - male or female.