Have you heard that Digg’s “democracy” is in danger lately? You pretty sure have (here’s a good summary). They say, Digg could be controlled by a small group of Diggers – the top 30. And now everyone is looking for the flaws in the system. I tell you: you’re searching in the wrong place. There are none. But we’re just about to put some in.
Democracy.
In every democratic society, there will always be individuals standing out from the crowd. The important thing to understand is that this is not a flaw in the system. This is an inevitable consequence of the equal treatment of all individuals in a democratic system. As all of them enjoy freedom of choice, some of them choose to stand out. Some of them don’t. It’s not the system that makes them different. It’s their very own individual choice.
The Top Diggers chose to dedicate a lot of their time to Digg. They submitted and dugg countless stories which built up Digg. And so, they began to stand out.
Once you stand out, others look at you. And these others are again facing a choice: Either they accept you standing out. Or they don’t. See a pattern here?
It’s not the system’s responsibility to define who’s allowed to stand out. It’s the individual’s. The system’s responsibility is to make sure that every individual has the choice to stand out or not, and the choice to allow others to stand out or not. And this is what Digg doesn’t make sure today.
Digg doesn’t allow users to understand how the front page algorithm works. Digg doesn’t allow users to choose whether they want to have the Top 30 Diggers’ stories on the front page or not. It’s an algorithm that decides.
This algorithm allows some users to have control over the front page, some other users don’t want them to have. The system appears to be out of balance. Of course, as they cannot change it themselves, some users now blame the system to take charge of it.
Complexity.
Whenever something like this happens, most of us believe the current system is too simple. So we start to introduce regulations. We come up with more complex rules. Digg tries to “balance” the system by using a more advanced front page algorithm that takes a user’s status into account. Wait a second! A user’s status? In a truly democratic system, shouldn’t all users be treated the same?
Suddenly users are no longer treated the same. We accept this, we introduce this complexity, because we need it for our new rules to work. We allow complexity to enter, take control of, and finally destroy the system. I call this the “complexity impact”.
It is this phenomenon that brought us all kinds of bureaucracy we all have to, but nobody really wants to, live with.
It is this phenomenon that brought us a fiscal system that only experts can understand.
It is this phenomenon that brought us a legal framework that only experts can cope with.
It is this phenomenon that by destroying transparency removed the power from every individual to put it into the hands of a few.
It is complexity at work. And instead of fighting it, we promote it.
It is the very opposite of what we initially intended.
Complexity rises because we do not trust the beauty of true simplicity. We cannot believe that this simplicity is the nearest we can get to a true democratic system. So we start to make up rules that “balance” the system. And with the good intention to “balance” the system, we destroy the balance it had in the first place.
While in the beginning everyone was treated equal, we now create groups of individuals that will be treated differently.
While in the beginning the system was transparent to everyone, only a few can still understand it now.
While in the beginning everyone had a choice, only the few who still understand the system gain all the power.
In fact, we’re not trying to “balance” the system. We’re trying to “balance” the individuals. And this is just denying the very nature of our individuality. We are all different. We cannot be “balanced”.
It can’t be the system that takes charge of the problem. It must be the users. The system just needs to make sure they can.
Transparency.
I believe instead of making things more complex, we should consider exactly the opposite: Keep the system as simple as it is and ensure transparency.
Transparency is an effective tool to build a true democratic system.
It gives everyone the chance to use the system.
It gives everyone the chance to understand how the system works.
And, yes, it gives everyone the chance to cheat the system.
Of course, we have to deal with those individuals showing unexpected behavior (cheaters, spammers, etc.). Again, it’s exactly the same situation as in every democratic society. But to let an algorithm deal with these individuals, is ignoring a social problem and putting it into the realms of technology. Once there, you end up in an arms race (think DRM) that wastes everyone’s resources and will never end.
Responsibility.
You should have noticed by now that all I talk about is responsibility. If Digg is intended to be a true democratic system, it has to built on the responsibility every user feels for it. And if enough users feel responsible, and are given the choice to bear their responsibility, they will make it work.
Digg needs to give users the power to choose, whom they want to stand out and whom not. There are many ways to achieve this, some of them already in place (the “Bury Story” functionality for example). But in the center of criticism currently is the front page. So why not make the front page algorithm open source?
Trust in your users’ responsibility.
Trust in transparency.
Trust in simplicity.
What really strikes me is that in all these discussions about Digg’s democracy, everyone was concerned about who’s in power. Hardly anyone was concerned about the quality of Digg’s content. Has it changed? Has it become worse? Is there really a problem, or are we just talking about the chance of having a problem in the future?
Similarity.
Personally, I don’t really care about who controls digg. It’s a system I can easily escape from, if it doesn’t deliver the quality I expect it to. It’s my own choice. Nevertheless I have good reasons to write this post.
Unfortunately, there are other systems we can’t easily escape from. And they have very similar problems. Maybe these systems can benefit from what we learn from Digg. And this is why I wrote this post. To make you aware of similarities.
It’s up to us to choose whether Digg is just another Web 2.0 phenomenon. Or if it’s much more than that.
I believe it can be much more.
Do you?