There are no opinion, all you did was recite what 100000 other blogs did yesterday and today. All that was, was a bad attempt to further traffic to your blog (which nobody reads).
If anything, your "recent blog live link" is there on every post here, not mine, added with so many signature links. What's that all about? What are you more worried about, your traffic actually going down or mine going up? Carry on, because frustrated people like you can't do any better than talking trash.
Mmm yea I'm having trouble getting traffic all right. 100k+ organic hits from Google alone for the last 4 months just isn't enough for me As for the links, it's for PR/extra back links. Has nothing to do with the 10 hits a week DP can send to my sites.
If you can get only 10 people to go to your site from your 5 signature links, makes me wonder how one of my links, which was relevant to the topic is spam. I come to DP to build a community, not to piss people off.
Your link added absolutely nothing new to the conversation. Try posting a link from digg's official blog, or to the digg story with over 30,000 Diggs. Not your 120 word ramble. /done arguing.
I do think that Digg wasn't technically breaking any enforceable copyright rules by allowing the HD-DVD encryption code to be posted on their website. The question is whether they were in their right to try to remove content that could cause harm to a third party. Suppose someone out there posted a story on Digg about where you live. Suppose they said that you have a bunch of expensive items inside your home and there wasn't any security system protecting it and a lot of people out there were interested in taking your stuff for free. How would that make you feel? Paranoid, angry, scared? Would you ever leave your home again? Look, the knowledge of the encryption key may mean nothing for you but it could cause the loss of millions of dollars for people working in the HD-DVD industry, like the producers making HD-DVD content for tites, the companies that press the discs and the distrbutors and retailers that sell them. A lot of people try and paint a picture that stealing DVD or movie content doesn't do any harm except to the faceless corporate entity movie company but that's not true. It impacts the people that own the companies that also are involved in the DVD/movie business and the employees working for them. Put it another way: suppose one day a story gets Digged about a person or company and it causes them financial ruin. Then suppose that it comes out that the story was bogus, that someone submitted it to ruin the reputation of that other person. Is that something that Digg was really made to be used for? And before you say "That's never going to happen", think again. There are plenty of examples of news outlets publishing stories about people or companies and later it turns out to be incorrect. There is no control mechanism to prove that a story is true on Digg, just the popularity of the users that vote for it. The next time this happens it may not be so clear who the bad guy really is.
The problem with that is that Kevin has made pod cast etc about hacking the xbox...psp...password cracking...war driving...you name it. It's hypocritical at best to remove it. Only reason it was removed is because HD-DVD sponsors them.
Did your personal attacks add any value to the conversation? BTW, I actually read your blog post and your words of wisdom left me dumbfounded. Maybe I should digg it.
I've heard a bit that Kevin had topics like that and if so, I agree with you 100%. It is hypocritical. But the larger philosphical issue still remains and the social engineering websites will have to draw some kind of strategy to combat these kinds of issues when they arise. Remember the Myspace page that listed where to find a party and hundreds of teenagers showed up and trashed the place? Or the Craiglist ad that gave the address of a house and said everything inside was free and it turned out to be 100% fake? That's the kind of things that I am talking about. People talk about hacking and breaking copyright all the time on the internet and the only reason Digg's community is freaking out is because it sided with the HD-DVD owners. So was Digg in the right when Kevin talked about how to hack the PSP or Xbox or how to wardrive? Why is this instance any different than revealing how to do any other illegal hack...just because he took it down? So it's OK to Digg stories about how to hack or steal as long as you don't side with the man? I just see the whole issue as being a lot more complex than Digg selling out to HD-DVD interests.
The thing is a lot more complicated than them removing stories about the hex key. Kevin and or the Digg admins needlessly removed stories that didn't even contain the hex key, and merely talked about it. (Not mentioned in the story.) They also banned the users that made these particular posts. There is nothing even remotely questionable about linking to a news website talking about the hack (not even how to execute it, just that it was in the open). Everyone thinks he did this because of the big HD-DVD sponsor ads before Diggnation episodes. So to sum it up be basically removed and or censored all stories pertaining to HD-DVDs, and censorship to protect the interest of his advertisers. However, he wouldn't have those advertisers, or ANY websites without his once loyal user base. He put money and a cooperation in front of his users who made him who he is. In the end nobody even cared about the hex key - everyone knew what it was. It was because he stabbed his user base in the back. Posting the hex key was out of spite.
Well then it will be interesting to see if the Digg readership turns it back on Kevin and the site because of this incident. There are lots of alternatives to Digg now and if people are feeling really betrayed by what happened then they should vote with their mouse clicks and go to Reddit, Delicious, etc.
Ironically during the incident their traffic was higher than ever causing database errors for hours and hours, and the server to time out for a while. I think it helped them sadly.