Digg.com Sold To Betaworks For $500,000 193
New submitter MyFirstNameIsPaul writes "The once popular social news website Digg.com, which received $45 million in funding, is being sold to to Betaworks for $500,000. From the article: 'Betaworks is acquiring the Digg brand, website, and technology, but not its employees. Digg will be folded into News.me, Betaworks' social news aggregator. This is not the outcome people expected for Digg. In 2008, Google was reportedly set to buy it for $200 million.'"
Update: 07/13 12:26 GMT by S : Looks like real number is about $16 million.
Look on the bright side (Score:5, Insightful)
This is still 500,000 times what Newsweek sold for. So I guess it means failure in digital is still worth more than a failed dead tree product.
All social media sites can expect to share this fate soon enough with the exceptions of facebook, twitter and a couple more than will survive for a bit. The whole model depends on scaling up to 'too big to fail' before the initial money runs out. And of course 'too big to fail' also fails eventually, see myspace and any number of other dead and forgotten sites that had their fifteen minutes.
The only way to make money in this game is to piss off the users as you slap them in the face with the reality that they aren't customers.... they are the product. Yet the sole reason a social media site exists is because users want to be there, the defining feature is there is little created/curated content on a social media site, it is all user created. And since users aren't really tied to a site they are free to be fickle and jump to the next shiny thing they can share links to cat videos on. Which all means it is fairly easy to get a crapload of users, just give em free services; making a living giving away stuff to zillions of users is still a hard and mostly unsolved problem. Google is making money giving stuff away, anyone else?
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure about that (Score:2, Troll)
Newsweek will also be around longer than Digg.
I am really doubtful of that, Newsweek will cease to exist after the election as at this point it is solely a propaganda rag that will lack use after the election is finished (no matter who wins).
Meanwhile Digg will continue to sit there, possibly mismanaged but carrying on as it has been. They could probably simply leave it running as-is indefinitely and make money for quite some time off referrals and ad revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't read Newsweek, but doesn't it do actual journalism, and digg just lets people vote up stories on other web sites?!? One is actually producing something, one isn't? (Which is the problem with most blogs, which just rehash other stories, often originally coming from actual journalists, usually happening to
Re:Look on the bright side (Score:5, Informative)
Every criticism you offer about online / social web sites could be equally well applied to something like broadcast television... And yet, they've been operating and profitable for a half-century now, with no end in sight, and the future looks fairly bright for them after the switch to HDTV, with only minimal potential for 'disruptive technology' on the horizon that could upset the good-old business model.
Yes: TV & Radio.
Re: (Score:2)
Cable TV stations have dual sources of income, yes, but their quality has been falling dramatically, even while they have exploded in numbers. Dish Network has been playing hardball for years against them, and winning. You can get Dish Network for just $15/month with their welcome package, which has local channels plus a few of the most popular cable channels, but completely cutting the flood of cable channels off from ANY revenue.
But the real threat is HDTV. Now that broadcast TV is digital and highdef,
Re: (Score:2)
> Radio would be dead except it costs almost nothing to keep a station on the air ...
Sorry, I couldn't resist that one. *Broadcast* radio and television cost considerably more to operate than most people think, even if a given station can achieve a state of complete automation.
First, there are simply the costs of putting a station on the air. To give you an idea, our company purchased a Class A (3-6KW) station several years ago for about 1.5 million. To replace the old equipment and antenna system cost s
Re: (Score:2)
That would be true, IF they were equivalent. Heck, even if you add a year delay, you can't get most of the shows you can record now if you get cable. (Since you mentioned Amazon, I presume you're only talking about streaming. If you talk about DVDs too, then you can get a pretty decent percentage of the popular OTA & cable original series... but still nowhere near all of them, esp things like reality shows.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Look on the bright side (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet the sole reason a social media site exists is because users want to be there (...) And since users aren't really tied to a site they are free to be fickle and jump to the next shiny thing they can share links to cat videos on.
Perhaps, perhaps not. There's a huge amount of peer pressure of the "Why can't you use YouTube like everybody else? Stop being such a special snowflake." variety, maybe not for cat videos but for many other things. For example recently I needed to talk to some friends and their tool of choice is now Facebook Chat. Before that there was MSN, before that ICQ or IRC. I didn't choose to abandon any of those, but you can't be social without people to be social with. You can more than sustain a profit on those network effects as long as you don't become so obnoxious people leave in greater numbers than they join.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to make money in this game is to piss off the users as you slap them in the face with the reality that they aren't customers.... they are the product...[snip]....Google is making money giving stuff away, anyone else?
That's kind of a narrow way of looking at how to extract money from social media. For example I saw a TV ad less than an hour ago for a social media site for car lovers and rev heads. The site itself is owned and operated by Shannons a specialist insurer for collectable cars and bikes but the content is generated by users uploading pictures, etc, to their virtual garage.
In other words the insurance company is using it's existing repuation as a well known specialist to cut out the middle men. They are try
Re:Look on the bright side (Score:5, Insightful)
Please note the important difference between free software and free services. If you release a piece of free software it costs almost nothing more if a million people download it vs a thousand. On the other hand if lots of people download and use it you are almost certain to get contributions in the form of feature enhancements, patches and bug reports; and history shows that you are likely to eventually generate enough general activity around the project to produce revenue. If not enough revenue to cover all development costs, certainly enough to cover the hosting bills since those scale fairly closely with general interest. The beauty of the cost of reproduction being as close to zero as to not make a difference is at the heart of the Free Software success story.
Now compare to free services like facebook. Every incremental user costs money. The only way, so far, to generate offsetting revenue is by ruthlessly marketing the users to advertisers. But users don't like that and venture capitalists are eager to throw money into the 'next big thing' so you are competing against free.
Re:Look on the bright side (Score:5, Insightful)
Many companies make money by making free stuff. Here are a few: Red Hat, Canonical, Facebook
But the product of Facebook is not the website, and neither are the Linux distros the final products of Red Hat or Canonical. It's like saying a fishing company gives the bait away free. The bait or the code are just production costs, expenses required in order to create their product. For Red Hat the product is support, sold to companies, and for Facebook the product is you, sold to advertisers.
Re: (Score:2)
For Red Hat the product is support, sold to companies, and for Facebook the product is you, sold to advertisers.
In some cases, the product is the company, sold to the stockholders. That's the only sale that matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can't comment on the others, but Canonical is most certainly NOT making money. They're burning far more money than what's coming in and given Shuttleworth's attitude (i.e. So what? [businessinsider.com]) it doesn't look like they'll be profitable any time soon.
While profits might be anathema to some in the open source world, a business needs to break even if it's going to have long term survivability.
This would have been first post, but... (Score:3, Funny)
This would have been first post, but it was a missed opportunity.
When Kevin Rose Wanted to Eat a Taco (Score:5, Interesting)
If I remember correctly, wasn't Digg supposed to be the new Slashdot without the hardcore Geek Cred? Didn't Kevin Rose speak directly to CmdrTaco about the failings of Slashdot? Kevin doesn't seem that bad a guy, actually, but he had two major failings that I can see:
- Not selling at the top of the market, which is usually hard to gauge anyway, (and didn't he leave some time ago?)
and the most important failing:
- Dumping Sarah Lane so that she could later travel the world on Honeymoon and get a brain eating parasite.
Better Days to them both.
Re:When Kevin Rose Wanted to Eat a Taco (Score:5, Informative)
Re:When Kevin Rose Wanted to Eat a Taco (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps Diggs' new owners will use "cvs update -r DIGG_UPDATE_3" or whatever and undo the heinous redesign ?
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, he left around the time of the Digg 4 update (the one that killed Digg and caused it's users to flood tons of other sites).
I blame Leo Laporte of TWiT (this week in tech) - Dig 4 Was My Idea! [twit.tv]
Sure Dig 4 was a flop, but consider this: What If his "idea" was to keep Dig from being a threat to his growing media empire?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Digg was much bigger than /. when it was going at full steam, had better and more timely articles, and much bigger discussions due to its larger community. But the board chose a ridiculous redesign for V4 and refused to listen to the voice of the users. They thought the dip in numbers would be a temporary thing, people would soon come back. Well, they didn't. They left in droves.
When the writing was on the wall, Rose bailed out giving control to others to try to resurrect the product his braindead decisions
Re:When Kevin Rose Wanted to Eat a Taco (Score:5, Interesting)
digg is still bigger than slashdot.. about 5x bigger
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/slashdot.org [alexa.com]
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/digg.com [alexa.com]
Re: (Score:3)
digg is still bigger than slashdot.. about 5x bigger
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/slashdot.org [alexa.com]
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/digg.com [alexa.com]
But it's dead as a source of important news. It's an aggregator along with the rest - nothing special about it. Furthermore, as a forum it is basically as useful as HuffPo except without the scoops.
Meanwhile, people still link to slashdot, and the comments here are still +1 Informative that I don't see elsewhere. If you want digg, you might as well go reddit and get the AMA and other features that make that site digg but better.
Re: (Score:2)
never read digg regularly.. so I'll take everything you said at its word. But according to alexa, there are 90k links to slashdot, and over 1million to digg. So people are definitely still linking to them.
Re: (Score:3)
digg is still bigger than slashdot.. about 5x bigger
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/slashdot.org [alexa.com]
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/digg.com [alexa.com]
OR on the whole digg users have alexa spyware installed, but slashdot users don't?
Re:When Kevin Rose Wanted to Eat a Taco (Score:4, Interesting)
But unfortunately Slashdot has one of the better and smarter public discussion boards. (Which doesn't really bode well for the others including digg)
Dig focuses mostly on the links. Slashdot focuses on the discussion. Digg gets more hits but Slashdot people stay on it longer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Take your rose-colored glasses off re Digg. It is factually true that Digg had much bigger discussions, but they were awful. You can find any number of PhDs commenting regularly about niche topics on Slashdot, but that never happened on Digg. It was always college kids allcapsing their uninformed opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
"You can find any number of PhDs commenting regularly"
0 is a number right?
Kidding aside, I actually like it if I post something, and someone disagrees with me, or proves what I though was a fact wrong, and gives me references to check out. There has been a few times I needed to consed my opinion, just because my facts were proven to be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Red Hat, Suse, Gentoo, or Ubuntu?
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? He already sold out. It hasn't been Kevin Rose's baby since he sold it for the $45 milllion. He made out like a bandit.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any citation for this? I was wondering if Rose made anything on Digg.
The only reference I could find that he did was some Gawker story whose author had no clue how VC financing works, and was making idiotic guesses...
"Allowing the VCs to put in enough money to make the investment worth their time, at a high valuation, would require substantial dilution, which would disadvantage employees and early investors. Much simpler to transfer shares directly from one large shareholder — Rose
Re: (Score:3)
Digg was actually a pretty good site when it was tech-oriented. Then there was an update (Digg 4?) that tried to draw in more crowds by adding all sorts of submission types. Pretty soon all the tech people left and the site was reduced to people posting "funny" pictures, random computer tips everyone knew about years ago, and top 10 lists. It used to be that an article required hundreds of votes to make the front page. Go look now: as of this posting, the first story has only 29 votes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was it got way too political. Popular links were all about these crazy "Tea Party Proportion" anti President Bush Links. This attracted the general dumb masses who will follow or reject the idea based squarely on the political party the presents it.
My father is like this. I love him dearly however we have different approached to politics...
I remember in the Mid-1990's my father was saying to me... The Problem with health care is that we need to incorporate a systems like we have to cars in Ne
Forget Digg... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot has been relativity steady. About a new story an hour with an average of roughly 200 comments in each one.
It has been like that for years.
Ephemeral values of interwebs properties (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why I won't buy stock in fazebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the product/company is very finicky and short-lived does not necessarily mean that it is to be avoided in terms of investment.
Social media companies are in essence bubbles. If you are careful, you buy the shares before or in its early stages of popularity and then sell them before everyone gets sick of it. Just like Pump-and-Dump only without the false positive misinformation (Owners do all that for you for free).
It is quite a risky endevour though: You have to be extremely careful of the timin
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to say anything non-negative about facebook, but plenty of other traditional investments can be as ephemeral. Hence the term "bubble". On Monday stock in X can be worth something and on Tuesday it can be only worth the paper they print it on.
Good riddance... (Score:2)
and I'm sure I speak for more than just myself when I say that. The first year or two of Digg's existence were actually alright, when interesting articles were actually posted on the front page. It degraded rather quickly, however, into a reeeeeally shitty aggregator. When I finally stopped going, it was almost completely top-ten lists and links to "funny" pictures.
I used Digg.com a lot now I use Reddit.com (Score:5, Informative)
Where Digg went wrong was,"We gotta beat these power users to their own game!" So they made it so users could no longer submit stories. And then your entire feed was all corporate sponsored advertising. This is equivalent of turning prime time television into one giant informercial. I know nothing of value is lost there, but in social media, this is a group of people moderating news and it was pretty valuable until they killed it thinking we're all bunch of sheep who will just sit there and read advertisements all day.
I'm glad Digg.com is dead. I just hope Reddit.com doesn't pull something stupid too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad Digg.com is dead. I just hope Reddit.com doesn't pull something stupid too.
Like employing/encouraging/allowing douchebags to game 9/10 of all submissions with a snowball's chance in hell of gaining any significant rank? Too late. According to recent revelations, the fix was in before even Conde Naste bought them up.
Oh yeah...Fuck Babyman! And now, fuck DavidReiss666 (et al)
Reddit is already dead (Score:2, Interesting)
Reddit is already dead from a usability standpoint. The largest subreddits are unrefutably crap, and the overall site is overrun by the hordes of idiots who infect the few decent, smaller subreddits. Unfortunately, the site has degenerated into a massive karmawhoring party and it is no longer easy to find quality links in the sea of regurgitated memes, 37-panel ragecomics about dropping a piece of toast, and Facebook screenshots. I never really cared for Digg, but did frequent Reddit from 2008 to 2010 befor
Re:Reddit is already dead (Score:4, Informative)
Once you disable certain obnoxious subreddits in your profile, the site actually becomes wonderful. Just turn off /r/atheism, /r/adviceanimals, and maybe /r/politics, and add the many TV/movie related and other cultural subreddits and you have a nice party.
Re: (Score:2)
"News.me"???? (Score:2)
At the end of the day I seem to keep returning to Facebook (family) Twitter (news and stuff that matters), and to a lesser extent Slashdot and a handful of RSS feeds.
LinkedIn? Digg? Pictionary.. uh, I mean Pinterest? Flattr? Etc Etc Etc?
Or maybe I'm just waiting for the Next Big Thing. Which will likely require 3D glasses.
Re: (Score:2)
One of those things is not like the others. Flattr is not social site, it's effectively a way to pay a cup of coffee to people who do nice things online. And it pools money on both ends, so you don't pay 60% of the donation on processing fees.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the 500,000 is for patent war (Score:3)
Will we see Digg's new owners taking up arms against Reddits, and all the other hundreds of sites that 'copied' their idea of user-rated submissions based on a thumbs up / thumbs down or "Like" / "Hate" system?
Perhaps Facebook could be a target. Digg's "Digg" button did predate Facebook's "Like" button, and FB's "Like" functionality can be construed as a shameless copy of Digg's Digg function; granted FB didn't copy the counter, and Digg didn't provide a list of users that liked the article, or publish lists of articles liked by a user.
Too Funny (Score:5, Funny)
I seem to recall that Rose made Digg because he felt there was too much elitism on Slashdot.
I guess elitism works!
Vivo El Taco!!!
Lesson for Google+ (Score:2)
Maybe not elitism in itself, but focus. Other examples: science journals making a profit from paywalls, where general newspapers fail; Vi(m) continuing to flourish despite an interface more unfriendly that a word processor from the DOS era; the Soyuz outlasting the more technologically advanced Space Shuttle.
If there's a lesson to be learned, it's that if you can't be the biggest brontosaurus in the jungle (a big web site), become a bird or a small but agile furry little creature (a fo
Similar fate (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Listen to your users (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW..The only reason I use reddit is because I can use an app to peruse the content without the HORRID site interface. And by horrid I mean fucking terrible.
$500K number has been debunked (Score:3)
http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/12/betaworks-acquires-digg/ [techcrunch.com]
Okay, I got this link from Fark. Shoot me.
[Spiffy] It's not news its SLASHDOT.org (Score:2)
HA! HA! You're posting Fark links on Slashdot. Your dog wants steak. The Sun is there.
\ Aisle seat please.
\\ Its a street light!
\\\ Summon Bevots!
\\\\ Slashdot slashies.
I can't think of any more classic Fark memes. This comment is useless without pics.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, so not Yahoo! (Score:4, Insightful)
The Problem with Social Media... (Score:2)
is people. Digg is crap because most people who post are idiots.
There needs to be a grown-up table, and the kids need to sit in the kitchen and be seen and not heard (from), just like the old days. :)
Good riddance (Score:2)
slashdot style human editing necessary (Score:2)
Re: I was a Digg user six years (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
MrBabyman (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not sure why you're being downmodded. This is exactly why I left digg.
I remember the digg patriots, the right wing bury brigade that tried to hide any liberal posts. That stupidity came out at the same time as the v4 changes. Not to mention the constant problem of power uses having their little club and only voting up their cronies. I think all of that combined probably did it for most people. I know it did it for me.
It was stupid and pathetic and I'm glad that shitty site has been chopped up and parce
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Since then I've been looking for a decent community that aggregates real news.
Twitter.
I follow the Economist, (the Onion), numerous good tech sites and writers, as well as friends I respect. Lots of good news aggregation if your twitter feed is more than "I put on a redshirt. Oh no Captain Kirk!"
Re: (Score:3)
You could try Hacker News. Its unofficial tagline is "this isn't Reddit".
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that, but the comments were consistently of TERRIBLE quality, even on tech and gaming stories (and even worse when they branched out). I couldn't believe it back in the day when people were actually calling Digg a "Slashdot killer." But people are saying the same shit about Reedit today, and that's just as laughable.
Re: (Score:3)
Its not pointless when it points out the principal reason Digg is done.
Virtually Nobody saw any good reason to use that site, virtually nobody goes there for a recommendation on what they should read about. It failed precisely because the vast majority shared Reboot246's opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet Reddit is extremely popular
precisely (Score:2)
Although /. page layout doesn't place highly-rated stories first. The calendar does that.
Slashdot's moderation seems to be slowing the decline into group-think but I still feel like I'm falling when I read /.comments -- which is getting less often.
Get Off My Lawn! (Grumble, grumble)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Show your IQ and say my handle out loud to yourself
Still wanna see my tits?
And get off my lawn!
Re:Slashdot won't go for even that (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot is very old when measured in Digg lives.
Re:What happened to Digg? (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to visit Digg several times a day. Then they did a site redesign that was horrible. I stopped going there, and after a few days, realized I didn't miss it.
Note to slashdot: I've been coming here at least once a day since 1998. Note you have had redesigns but nothing too horrible, and I'm still here. Don't pull a Digg.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What happened to Digg? (Score:5, Informative)
I used to visit Digg several times a day. Then they did a site redesign that was horrible.
It's important to point out that Digg v4 was quite a bit more than a "redesign". The closest thing I can compare it to is a ground-up rewrite of a major piece of software, where the new version not only looks different, but is missing some fundamental or well-liked features that were present in the previous versions.
Digg v4: How To Successfully Kill A Community [searchengineland.com]
It's hard to understate just how badly Digg screwed itself over with v4. The backlash was like nothing I had ever seen in, or read about, any similar circumstance. I had Digg Support close my account toward the end of the user revolt. (I refused to migrate to Reddit, though, because that site's design was (and still is) just terrible. It might have good content, but even the Mona Lisa can't spruce up a rusted-out utility shed.)
Earlier this week I got the urge to visit Digg for the first time in a long time... and it is such a sad, pathetic thing to behold. Where the most popular stories on the front page used to break 1000 "diggs", they now have two- maybe three-hundred diggs. Where submissions usually had a minimum of several dozen comments, now only the most popular stories seem to break a dozen. Most have only one or two...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one who's anonymous.
Re: (Score:2)
They did a site redesign that made functionality a lot worse for many people. At the same time, the algorithm was aggravating the users since it heavily-favored the high-karma users' posts and nobody else made it to the front page. Add a right-wing bloc of users called the Digg Patriots who tried dominating the discussions and downvoting what they didn't like, and many left; plenty to Reddit.
Re:All the Diggers went to Reddit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience [reddit.com]
http://www.reddit.com/r/printSF/ [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can do worse
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Reddit has been enjoyable, although after Digg crashed, the signal to noise ratio has gotten worse; and the number of reposts lately has been killing me.
Still, the forums work, and they have an edit feature that works.
Re:Yes shit happens (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most social comment-driven sites that employ a user-activated reward and punishment system eventually degenerate into boring, politically correct bully pulpits
As opposed to sites without a user-activated reward system, which start as "politically correct bully pulpits" aligned with their owners' views.
Re:The Writing is on the Wall, Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
The phrase, "bully pulpit" does not mean what you're using it to mean. In that phrase, (credit to Teddy Roosevelt?), "bully" is a synonym for, "awesome" or "grand."
When you speak from a regular pulpit, everyone in the room listens, typically of the order of 200 people, because a larger room would be too large for the "amplification" technique of "sticking a hollow box over the speaker's head." The presidency is a bully pulpit because when you speak as President, potentially 300 million are listening.
Slashdot has resisted this quite well (Score:3)
Most social comment-driven sites that employ a user-activated reward and punishment system eventually degenerate into boring, politically correct bully pulpits where the choir preaches only to the choir while everybody with a brain bails out.
But this has not happened to Slashdot.
The reason why is the moderation system, which some people dislike but I think works about as well as any moderation system can.
The proof is in really hotly debated topics - you can see arguments from BOTH sides of a hot issue being
That depends on the topic, though (Score:2)
The proof is in really hotly debated topics - you can see arguments from BOTH sides of a hot issue being moderated to +5, even if a lot of down-moderation is also applied. That's the key that tells you the system is working to keep people on all sides of an issue engaged, and makes the reading much more interesting as you have more of a real debate and much less a "pulpit" as you said.
It is true that you often see arguments from both sides modded up but I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that. There are many topics that aren't debated essentially at all because the consensus / group think has already been reached. That isn't bad thing in itself (Not every topic should be debated. We should have consensus not to support genocides, for example...) but the point is that for any hot topic we debate there is a consensus about a dozen more that we don't debate and thus us having some de
Drawing conclusions (Score:2)
It is true that you often see arguments from both sides modded up but I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that.
But in every other moderation system I have seen, that never happens. On Digg for example, you had extreme swings hard against one side or the other, with anything the predominant mods disagreeing with for that story being buried hard. That is why I think you can in fact draw conclusions from Slashdot examples, because it works every time where other systems repeatedly fail.
Honestly though,
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that is isn't a lame idea. The general problems came from mismanagement and that the idea didn't scale well, essentially becoming too popular for its own good. The idea of having a (relatively) small community posting links to news and random awesome stuff they find on the internet and having the community vote up what they like is a great idea. Once the community reaches a certain size, however things start to gravitate toward lowest common denominator crap (lolrandom bullshit and the latest
Re: (Score:2)
i don't understand your complaint regarding facebook. you can choose not to friend people, and you can even choose to not see updates from friends who keep posting stupid crap. facebook is as bad and as good as you can make it.
Re: (Score:2)