I saw a bit of this unfold yesterday on Digg.com, when I jumped on I think users were probably in the middle of the ‘riot’. 100% of the front page articles were articles that contained the below mentioned decryption key.
In case you missed it, basically it started with the Digg Admins deleting a story that contained a link to the decryption key for HD DVDs after receiving a cease and desist declaration.
That only seemed to get everybody upset and soon story after story linking to articles with that same decryption key or even containing the key in the subject line or description started to appear.
Those stories were all soon deleted and the user accounts were suspended but the dam had broke and there was no stopping the flood at this point.
It wasn’t long before the entire home page was filled with decryption articles and the users had effectively taken over the site. There was nothing Digg could do short of bringing the site down….
Digg Founder Kevin Rose responded to the situation on the Digg Blog yesterday and effectively threw in the towel and perhaps the future of his company.
“…. We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code.
But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.
If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.”
Wow. As he mentioned earlier in his post, Digg has had no problem in the past moderating posts that linked to pornography, illegal downloads, racial hate sites, etc.. It seems to me that the line between an ‘illegal’ decryption key and an illegal download link is barely visible.
I’m not a lawyer but I’m wondering where the blame will fall on this one. Digg is more or less a meeting space and the content is nearly 100% user provided but at what point do they have a responsibility for what is posted?
What if one day the users decided it was acceptable to post American troop locations in Iraq in an attempt to end the war - albeit at the cost of our soldier’s lives? Poor analogy? Yeah, but I could say the same thing about posting company financials or something relatively more benign.
The point is, you can’t allow the mob to run the asylum because what is allowable or not is entirely relative.
However this unfolds, it sure will be interesting to watch. Agree? Disagree? Leave your comments!
3 Comments
interesting. same goes i guess for p2p programs that provide the ability to share media. dont know how that can apply to text tho… freedom of the press anyone?
*reminder* those p2p programs are being shutdown all over the place.
You are such a good commenter I’m going to have to do a feature piece on you.
Yeah the notion of a copyrighted number is inherently strange.