Tuesday, February 23, 2010


I had never really understood what digg was until I read this chapter of Levinson's book. While Levinson explains the concepts behind the site and the social nature of it I feel that I would not like it. Although I like knowing what other American's value in the news (which is what I could see with digg) I far prefer seeing exactly what I value instead. This is why I really enjoy twitter and the way the Nytimes handle is set up. Each section of the newspaper is its own twitter handle, this way I can follow only the sections I want to know about. Then I can choose what I do or do not want to actually read. It comes in as it happens and I won't just get one or two articles that made it to a front page. Most of the stories I like to read come from the Dining section and probably would never make it to digg's front page and therefore I might miss out.


  1. Fair enough, but how about the basic principle behind Digg of having people vote items up and down?

  2. I understand and agree that it's much more preferable to hear and read what you choose you care about but at the same time, it seems that every day others are making decisions for us. The people on CNN or other news sources are deciding what stories they tell us. At least with Digg the people voting may be closer to our position, and not executives and producers.