Jay, I've just discovered some comments on Digg from an anonymous (using a fictitious name) user who suggests that I am an inadequate father and husband, and that it is assumed that I wear thong underwear with photos of women on them.

When I requested that abuse@digg.com remove these defamatory comments (as they clearly violate Digg's TOS), I was told that they are protected free speech. My lawyer's advice to obtain from Digg the IP address of the anonymous user was also rejected by the abuse team.

Why does Digg operate as a defamation engine in this way? Would a comment from an anonymous user that claimed Jay Adelson may have had gay sex with Bob Rieger stay posted on Digg, or would you take that down?

Posted by:Gregory Kohs | June 20, 2008 at 11:16 AM

Gregory,

I can't discuss Digg.com support issues publicly, but Digg does vigorously defend free speech and maintains a neutral stance regarding public debate. I will say that much worse things have been said about me and left up in comments...so I sympathize.

-Jay

Posted by:Jay Adelson | June 20, 2008 at 12:13 PM

Then why do your Terms of Service deny users the right to exploit Digg as an abuse platform? If your team isn't going to do anything about defamatory content about non-public figures, why even have the TOS in the first place?

Posted by:Gregory Kohs | June 20, 2008 at 03:54 PM

Following on from Gregory was talking about, I believe Digg has a responsibility over all comments made on it's platform. If someone makes derogatory comments about another individual on a blog of mine and I am asked to remove it I do so without exeception - it's called common courtesy. There is a difference between free speech - which is making a constructive argument - than outright lies to defame an individual. These days people's career can be destroyed by comments made in public forums and I think it is absolutely disgraceful for an individual like Jay Adelson to make no attempt to put a stop to cyber bullying. As for Jay Adelson simply saying people write stuff about him, well with that attitude I'm sure they do. Then again it won't harm him so much with millions in his bank account. It's other people with family's and young children to support who are being victimised that suffer. Grow up son and take some responsibility.

Posted by:Ian | July 16, 2008 at 12:53 PM

As I suspected, no response from you Mr Adelson. As far as I am concerned if Digg refuses to remove defamatory statements and acts of cyber bullying then they are aiding and abetting a crime.

Unfortunately the lack of control by the likes of Mr Adelson is causing the internet to be a mouthpiece for bullying, abuse and defamation. It is this lack of control that will destroy the internet because I for one am losing all trust in sharing my data with online companies because of the abuse and lack of control.

What is the point in having an email address for abuse when you allow the abuse to go unchallenged?

I would appreciate Mr Adelson contacting me on this matter if he has time to spare.

Posted by:Ian | July 18, 2008 at 03:56 PM

Hi,

Could you please contact me. I can't find an address to write to you at but I do have an important matter to discuss with you relating to how you advertise in Canada.

For your information, it is illegal to advertise human contraceptives in Canada. Yet your .com Digg is doing that, at www.macleans.ca, on practically every page hosted by rogers publishing. Your company is breaking the law here in Canada. You can't advertise 'Anya' to get more diggs for own site.

Thanks,
karen

Posted by:Karen Krisfalusi | July 19, 2008 at 04:52 PM

Seems like Mr. Adelson has left the building. With unaccountability like this, I'd think he's a clone of Jimmy Wales!

Posted by:Gregory Kohs | July 20, 2008 at 12:17 AM

In my opinion Google, Digg et al hide behind the gimmick of "free speech" to remove all responsibility from themselves but more importantly because the housekeeping side of their business costs less to run that way.

It seems to me that you can get away with calling someone a pedophile, printing their name, address, bank details etc etc and Digg, Google will turn a blind eye. But as soon as you post a site with say a hidden link then they will come down on you like a tonne of bricks.

Just basically kids playing with their toys and balls to the consequencies.

This is a frightening scenario - not just for the internet - but for lives in general.

Adelson - as I suspected - has no opinion on the subject matter because the debate seems to be above his maturity threshold.

"Look, Mom, we wrecked another life!".

Posted by:Ian | July 20, 2008 at 04:21 AM

You guys really force me to reconsider having a personal blog.

When people asked me to start one up, this was my argument against doing it: Someone would be unhappy with a Digg policy, and when faced with a decision they don't like, they would take it to my blog and start using it for Digg, Inc. issues.

This is not the place for this, folks. For the record, I've asked my team at Digg to address these issues per our policy. There are ways to pursue these issues, and this is not one of them.

I *will not* allow this blog to be a place to address Digg concerns. Don't expect me to react to another complaint again in this forum.

If this continues, I'll just take the site down.

Posted by:Jay Adelson | July 20, 2008 at 09:15 PM

Jay, if you have asked your team to address these issues then that is great and I'm sure we all look forward to seeing the changes occur and more action taken.

I believe cyber bullying is on the verge of getting out of control and feel it is time for high profile internet companies to act more responsibly.

Unchallenged this menace will evolve into common place and I'm sure none of us wants that.

It is creditable that you do have a personal blog and that you do respond to users concerns personally.

Posted by:Ian | July 21, 2008 at 03:19 AM

Did you actually put in a complaint about it through whatever channels they have at digg before going to it's founder's blog?

Unless he was lying when he said, "When I requested that abuse@digg.com remove these defamatory comments (as they clearly violate Digg's TOS), I was told that they are protected free speech. My lawyer's advice to obtain from Digg the IP address of the anonymous user was also rejected by the abuse team."

I find it hard to blame people for this entirely. The CDA is perverse in that it encourages this kind of behavior. Saying that they support free speech sounds better than, "we don't ever want to be held liable." It also ensures that EFF-types will be on their side if and when they are sued.

Part of me almost wonders if the hostility toward any "Web 2.0" style sites is itself utterly misguided. If I set up a private "closed" blog with no comments, and bad-mouthed Greg (or whomever) it would be even harder to get such negative commentary taken down than any Web 2.0 anonymous-user generated content, like you see on Digg or WMF sites.

By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree not to use Six Flags / Starbucks:

1. to abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other customers;
2. to post or transmit, or cause to be posted or transmitted, any Content that is libelous, defamatory, abusive, offensive, or otherwise violates any law or right of any third party;
3. to attempt to impersonate another user or person.