So, THIS is why many progressive sites have gotten more conservative in the past year!

[BlueCaliDem]

Orchestrated Censorship by Conservative Social Media Behemoth, Digg.com

A group of influential conservative members of the behemoth social media site Digg.com have just been caught red-handed in a widespread campaign of censorship, having multiple accounts, upvote padding, and deliberately trying to ban progressives. An undercover investigation has exposed this effort, which has been in action for more than one year.

"The more liberal stories that were buried the better chance conservative stories have to get to the front page. I'll continue to bury their submissions until they change their ways and become conservatives."
-phoenixtx (aka vrayz)

...
One bury brigade in particular is a conservative group that has become so organized and influential that they are able to bury over 90% of the articles by certain users and websites submitted within 1-3 hours, regardless of subject material.

<snip>

The DP group searches Digg for any articles from websites they want to drown out, sites such as Salon, News Junkie Post, Talking Points Memo, FreakOutNation, Five Thirty Eight, ThePublicRecord, Rawstory, The Nation, Media Matters for America, PoliticusUSA, Alternet, Fire Dog Lake, Political Carnival, TruthOut, DailyKos, The Joshua Blog, The Brad Blog, Huffington Post, Science Blogs, Smirking Chimp, Down With Tyranny, Crooks and Liars, MarioPiperni, Buzzflash, Bob Cesca's REALLY AWESOME Blog, and The New York Times.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7977

These Nazis are spreading their cancer via the Internets to silence opposing views, Liberals, Progressives, and anyone else outside their tiny world. It's well-funded by powerful corporations.

What gets me is, the lackeys doing the upvoting, censoring, and taking on many socks in order to post on progressive sites, are Americans, too. These unpatriotic Americans disguise themselves as a Democrat, a Liberal, or a Progressive only to sow seeds of anger and doubt, so if you're wondering why progressive sites are suddenly more conservative than they were, oh, a year ago, you now know why.

[daleanime]

1. Sad to say....

kind of expected it.:hide:

[leftstreet]

2. So why do liberals, progressives, and leftists let them get away with it?

:shrug:

[Occulus]

4. Because Certain Websites don't allow users to call them out when they're seen and exposed. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

14. Yes. Because it is all about avoiding divisiveness and maintaining civility.

It's all about the big tent even when a pole of that tent is a Republican mole organization.

[leftstreet]

16. ...

:spray:

even when a pole of that tent is a Republican mole organization

:spray:

[Hawkowl]

38. So that's what keeps

Jabbing me in my ass. Goddamn rethuglican mole pole.

[Ghost Dog]

41. Mole poles abound

and need to be identified, chopped down and expelled.

[Occulus]

18. There's only one website I've ever been on that doesn't allow that kind of call-out.

Per the admins of that site, as stated directly to me, that policy will not change.

That website is the only one I can name wherein the posters are not pretty much all on the same page; it's the only site I post on where there exist two diametrically opposed "camps".

I wonder if the one has anything to do with the other....

[sabrina 1]

33. So true ~ been going on since at least 2004 from what I have

observed. Progressives used to be too trusting. They were easy targets, but now I think, a lot of people have learned. And they better watch out. The only reason they succeeded was because no decent person would have thought people could be so deceptive. But now we know, and lefties are far smarter than rightwingers and if we were to play the same game, they would lose big time.

[marew]

58. You're right.

We are much to trusting. We Progressives, and I am proud to call myself one, are the people with kindness and compassion and want all people to have opportunities, health care, etc. We can't level the playing field for everyone but we want no one shut out of the system. We think all Americans should share some level of success. No, we are not trying to take away the fortunes of the rich, not at all, but they should appreciate that they live is a system that allows them to do so well. Isn't it interesting that many in the middle class would agree to pay a bit more in taxes to help others. The extremely wealthy, for the most part, not so much.

[TBF]

178. Not trying to take away the fortunes of the rich? Really?

I am absolutely for income redistribution. Do we really need billionaires when others are sleeping in tents? I don't think so.

[socialist_n_TN]

203. Yep. There's enough wealth in this country for .............

EVERYBODY to have a nice middle to upper middle class income, but it's all concentrated at the top.

[StarsInHerHair]

212. yes, Kanye West got his lower teeth replaced with diamonds

the wealthy are finding new & idiotic ways to spend their largess, which just shows me they have way too much money. I've also seen, for sale, mink bedspreads, fox key chains-the entire fox's tail. Watching the wealthy "Housewives" various series on Bravo also is eye opening: $60,000 for a 4-year-old?! Time to put all that excess money to better use-tax them already, for our veterans, for our children, for our country.

[mstinamotorcity]

184. Take away their FORTUNES,Their Voting rights,

try them in a court of law for TREASON,Call their mother and tell them they will not be home for dinner!!!!!!!!Don't want their Fortunes took!!! After what was done to the Average American!!!!Stole their homes,jobs,votes,investments,sons and daughters,mothers and fathers,two messed up wars. An economy that has been reduced of twenty four percent of this Nation's wealth. Personally I don't give a flying fuck if they never get another dime. All of those homeless people who have college degrees that they still owe for and probably haven't worked one single day. Don't ask my pity if suddenly they knew what it was like to not have anything. I would contribute to that scenario in a heartbeat!!!!!!!

TOMBStone

[Ozymanithrax]

215. U.S. Constitution...

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Because individual rights are held in high esteem, we do not try people for treason for having more money than other people, or just being assholes.

[mstinamotorcity]

243. So outing Ms Valarie

is just being an ass hole. Starting unjust wars,is just being an asshole.Giving nuclear technology for mangoes is just being an asshole. At least it could be said they are the whole ass. Not to mention the theft of American home ownership and betting on it to fail. If that isn't against America what do you call it?? Oh I know, Free Market Assholes!!:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[Ozymanithrax]

251. Out Valerie Plame may have been a crime, though if the President ordered it...

it would technically be legal. The President decides what is and is not classified. Politically, it would have been bad for Bush to have laid claim to it. Even if Cheney decided without Bush's knowledge, it is still criminal law of revealing classified information, not treason. The intent was not to destroy the United States but to destroy a political enemy. Intent is important.

However none of that was making war against the United States. The reason why the Constitution is so restrictive on the legal definition of treason is because the King of England used to define treason as whoever pissed him off, or people whose property he wanted.

Starting unjust wars would be unethical, immoral, and possibly a violation of the aggressive war doctrine in the Geneva Conventions. (As a signatory they are technically part of our law.) But we were making war against other people not the people of the United States, so it wasn't treason.

Theft of home ownership, would fall under civil or criminal law and is not making war against the people of the United States, unless it is done with someone else's army. So that isn't treason.

A lot of what you brought up may fall under civil or criminal law, but it is no more treason than jaywalking is treason.

Treason is a real word with a real definition, and when we deviate from that legal and Constitutional definition we advocate tyranny.

[mstinamotorcity]

252. Treason does have a real definition

And if its the Constitution that you are so wrapped around then where is the Constitution for the real individual rights of the American people not to be de-frauded by a corrupt and false system? Where is the Constitution when people homes have been stolen??? Oh I know they are not part of the constitution. Where is the Constitution when they persecute those of minority backgrounds?? Where is the Constitution when they won't look at Presidential Daily Briefings to attempt to avoid disaster?? Where is the Constitution where are children are being targeted for hate crimes because of suspected sexuality???? If you want me to adhere to what you say the constitution is,THEN LET ME REMIND YOU OF WHAT IT ISN'T!!!!

[Ozymanithrax]

258. Let me see...

(1) not to be de-frauded by a corrupt and false system... Falls under criminal law. there is not Constitutional right of that type... Committing acts of fraud can be prosecuted.

(2) I assume you are talking about the banks. They committed acts of fraud, most likely when they did not use legal documentation methods. Once again, fraud and recovery this property comes under civil and criminal law. In New York and Arizona, judges have acted stop some of these transfers.

(3) Which minority backgrounds. We began as a nation that protected white land owners. Over time, we have proven that those rights belong to women and minorities. These are cases of civil and criminal law. Tens of thousands of theses cases have shown that for the most part, there is protection for these. If you have a case, I suggest you see a Civil Rights attorney.

(4) It is not a Constitutional right to look at Presidential Daily Briefings. Yes, you are referring to Bush, but that is a matter of negligence which the American people can punish at the ballot box. People didn't. Many of us tried. I voted against him. What he did wasn't illegal and certainly wasn't unconstitutional.

(5) Sexuality is the big fight right now. We do not have a perfect system, perfect systems don't exist, and if history is the judge we may be looking at decades of fighting and work to have everyone recognized as equal and protected in matters of gender and sexuality. I grew up at a time when you went to jail for a gay sex act. Hell, I was born in a state where it was still illegal to marry someone of a different race. Most of my career in the military was served in an institution where being gay was punishable by a prison term. Sending gay service members to prison ended with DADT. And now the fight is to end DADT and allow them to serve openly, which I support, as I have supported ballot measures in California to allow marriage. The Constitution is there, but we must fight to so that it covers everyone.

Our Constitution, and especially the Bill of rights, is what we base all those freedoms on. If you are going to dump the Constitution's definitions of treason, then you dump everything else.

Maybe in the future we will fight for the right to health care and the right to a place to live. As long as there are people willing to work and fight for individual rights, it will slowly get better.

[mstinamotorcity]

262. Argument duly noted

1. This would make prosecutorial sense with the exception of Federal Judges being placed removed and fired and new Judges more friendly to the Free Market way of fucking over people.Not to mention the Supreme Court of the United States. I am still waiting for Judge Thomas' wife to explain that 500,000 dollars to her wittle tea party. Citizens United is lovely this time of year!!!

2.And you are right the Banks and Wall Street fall under Civil and Criminal Law. The Attorney Generals from all fifty states have asked that the foreclosures be halted and investigated. Saw That. Read That. Mighty funny the house next door has a foreclosure notice on it. I guess the American dream of home ownership doesn't fall under the pursuit of happiness.

3. Civil rights attorneys are need all over. But if it has rally been worked out why are they still dragging people of color behind trucks until death? Why are they traveling from state to state targeting and hunting down African American males?Why are they targeting Latino citizens just to expand prisons for profit from the U.S. Government.And why is it taking so long for trials of all prisoners at GITMO? Still feels like a Nation that protects white land owners.Do you live in America???

4. It wasn't illegal and wasn't unconstitutional. You say it was negligence.Well may be he can give us a few thousand lollipops and make it all better. And at what point does a President sanction the V.P.'s company to contract services to the military. You know the Concrete Company. And how many of our soldiers were electrocuted by taking a shower,or burned trying to brush teeth.I love our military too. But they deserve the safest and expertly constructed materials to work with and should not die by greedy little grubby hands.

5. There's the Constitution again,Any freedom that is guaranteed to us as citizens of the United States of America should apply to the LGBT community with no exceptions period. No Discussion Needed.

[TalkingDog]

232. I think they call that coercive harmony when cults are being discussed.

If you've read any books on the psychology of cults, you'll find that is a major warning sign.

[bobbolink]

90. Exactly!

:applause:

[peace frog]

129. HELLO

but for gawd sake, let's be civil about it! :eyes:

[OnyxCollie]

224. Certain websites

embrace former Freeper uberposters and allow them to dictate what it is to be "liberal."

[Chulanowa]

8. Liberals and Leftists don't. Progressives help them

It "sends a message to the Democrats" after all.

[provis99]

13. I'm betting you're one of them.

[Chulanowa]

17. Yup. I'm a Leftist.

Kickin' it old school, and not shitting my pants and calling myself something new every time the right decides it's a dirty word.

[RaleighNCDUer]

154. Well, technically 'Progressive' is the original term.

It was demonized by the right back at the turn of the last century and so progressives turned to 'liberal' to solidify the thought that Democracy is itself a 'liberal' idea - and the default in America is liberal, if you believe in the constitution.

A lot of righties have used the word 'progressive', though they certainly are not, wearing it like a beard as the DLC does, so they are back to corrupting 'progressive' again, just as they spent the last 50 years corrupting 'liberal'.

I guess what I'm saying is, language is mutable - principles are not. It matters less what you say you are than what you do.

[socialist_n_TN]

204. Socialist has never been very mutable

It is what it is and always has been. That's why I make no bones about it. I was a socialist all through the Reagan years when the "liberals" were running from the label.

[PufPuf23]

9. The wealthy, the military, the intelligence agencies, the corporate,,

and the authoritarians and their toadies in general have ownership of media and molding of minds -- the power.

We pay taxes and usually vote in candidates and policies for our own oppression.

I am not f*cking radical at all but socially liberal and fiscally, domestic social justice/general welfare, and foreign policy conservative and this has been obvious and compounding for most of my adult life. In 1968, Johnson -- who did great things -- stepped down because of Vietnam for ant-war RFK and Eugene McCarthy and we got pro-Vietnam Humphrey and lost to Nixon.

Today we (and we are rational, ususally intelligent, and have empathy) are ever more marginalized.

The neoliberals have fractured and confused the Democratic Party. They win on the liberals support, exclude liberals from serious input, and scapegoat liberals for clear perception and neoliberal losses.

[laughingliberal]

19. +1000 nt

[eomer]

44. You keep using that word. I do not think it means...

what you think it means.

Neoliberal is not a "neo" version of a liberal (and by liberal I mean as used in American politics).

Neoliberalism advocates free markets as the best solution. So most neoliberals in this country are conservatives or neocons. To use "neoliberal" as if it is a segment or evolution of "liberal" is confused and confusing.

Edit to add:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

[Catherina]

48. There are plenty of neoliberals in the party, Right now there's one

at the very top and he's not the first neoliberal Dem President.

[stillwaiting]

49. I think PufPuf probably believes that A LOT of Democrats are neoliberals...

But I will say for myself that I believe way too many Dems follow neoliberal economic policy (or do little to nothing to stop its successful implementation), and that includes Leadership.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

87. Well that was predicted a few years ago...

... that once Cheney and his chimp GW had shown everyone what a bunch of greedy, mean and superficial folks those NeoConservatives (aka: PNAC, PNAC'er NeoCon(s), Neoconservative(s) & neocon(s)) are, they would seek to rebrand themselves as NeoLiberals so as to latch on to the popularity and Democratic control of the Congress and Presidency. It was Cheney who brought in all the PNAC members to head departments and agencies under the figurative president GW Bush.

Turning folks into semantic arguing nincompoops is also part of their goal. It marginalizes, sidetracks and otherwise shuts down the discussion at hand.

BTW, I think this first cup of coffee is a bit stiff this morning, Whew!

[Hydra]

94. I'm pretty sure they meant it that way

There are a fair number of free market dems, with whom I disagree sharply with on that subject, since free market is code for monopolies and lawlessness.

[eomer]

109. Maybe so, but it is an odd way to say it.

"Neoliberal losses" is intended to include, I take it, the loss we just went through, which the poster blames on the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party. But it wasn't really a "neoliberal loss" if you look at the bigger picture and notice that the gains went to politicians who advocate neoliberalism. I think I understand what the poster was trying to say but there must be a better way to say it.

[PufPuf23]

115. Good article. I do not think that neo-liberal is the same as a liberal

at all but do think that liberals and neo-liberals are a divide in the Democratic Party and at DU.

Neo-liberals are the DLC / Third Way / Corporate Globalist factions of the Party.

FDR Democrats are liberals and DLC Democrats are neo-liberals.

Clinton and Obama have both made policy and appointments weighed heavy to neo-liberal philosophy well described in your link.

Sorry if I was unclear and for being late in response as this is my first glance at DU today.

[eomer]

136. We agree on everything.

I would just add to your <excellent list of things that are>, that almost all conservatives are neo-liberals.

And your original post was great; I don't want to dwell just on my nitpick and forget to say that.

[LWolf]

119. Neoliberal is certainly an economic term.

It's also an ideology that many Democrats embrace. The DLC, centrist, "new," "3rd way" Democrats ARE neoliberals.

Barack Obama is a neoliberal. The Obama administration is neoliberal.

[eomer]

137. Agreed. And almost all conservatives are neoliberals.

Being neoliberal is one of the ways in which the Obama administration is conservative.

[LiberalLovinLug]

160. What?????

:crazy:

terrible term: NeoLiberal

Neo Conservative = New Conservative. The new aggressive hard right, fascist some would argue.

Neo Liberal logically then should = a new aggressive hard left, socialist some might argue.

Why should the fact that a Liberal is of a "new" breed mean that they are now conservatives?
Either you are a Liberal or not!

The Knights of Labor march in Chicago in 1886 for an eight hour day was a new breed of liberal for its day
The suffragettes were a new breed of liberals
The anti war protesters of the 60's were a new breed of liberals
The civil rights marchers with Martin L. King were a new liberal voice on the scene.

To call someone a "new" liberal when they are seemingly giving up on progressive values and going backwards and licking corporate ass does not make any sense, whether those who act this way call themselves that or not!

I for one will never use the term. If you are describing a small c conservative, whether they are an R or a D...call him a bloody conservative!

[Enthusiast]

168. The term neo-liberal was created to

sow confusion in the ranks of the left wing-it worked.

[StarsInHerHair]

214. is ideology the same as dogma ?

dogma I understand to be something followed no matter the consequences, even if the stated goal is not reached, you must stay the course. Ideology sounds very similar, to me.

[LWolf]

253. In this case, yes. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

156. In our party, neolib = DLC. nt

[Radical Activist]

10. "Don't censor me! I'm holding Obama's feet to the fire! You march in lock step!"

We fall for it. That's why.

[flamingdem]

22. yessss nt

[Luminous Animal]

31. And what, really, is wrong with any of that? What is wrong with the free exchange

of ideas and the umbrage that can come with that?

[Radical Activist]

34. What's wrong is when those lines are used by people with other agendas.

People who are more interested in campaigning against Obama and dividing the left at all times no matter what he does. It's not an honest discussion when people are dishonest about their beliefs and/or intentions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=508877&mesg_id=508877

[Luminous Animal]

35. Unless you can prove someone is dishonest, your accusations are specious.

Merely stating that there are enemies amongst us is an appeal to people's baser instincts. Your link doesn't take me to people who have other agendas, it takes me to a person who accuses people of having other agendas. I can find similar informed content gossiping with the local grocer.

It's hard work routing out the disingenuous.

[Radical Activist]

36. It's not too difficult

to spot when someone is constantly campaigning against Obama. The campaigners aren't generally interested in an exchange of ideas.

[Luminous Animal]

39. I see a lot of one or two line accusations levied against DUers (from all sides)

but only a smattering of exchanges of ideas. Also, I see a lot of people interested in governance by the people and a lot of people interested in winning political campaigns (from all sides).

[ooglymoogly]

179. Now YOU are talkin boooolshit....and what I would call

disingenuous and the purest form of bullshit propaganda.

[ThomCat]

269. You keep claiming that you are interested in this "exchange of ideas"

when it really seems that you just want people to accept that you are omniscient. If you are so good at reading everyone's minds, and you know everyone's motives, why don't you just tell us what everyone believes? Either post all those great ideas for us, or just stay home in your basement and contemplate your divine omniscience by yourself?

Either way, you have clearly never been the least bit interested in exchanging any ideas with anyone. Especially when anyone dares to disagree with you.

:shrug:

[Chulanowa]

40. Are you familiar with Glen Beck's favorite excuse?

"I'm just asking questions! I'm just putting this out there, I'm not actually saying Barack Obama ate three Jewish babies a day! I just think someone should ask if maybe... MAYBE he did!"

He does this, and it works for him, because most people aren't very good at debate; they'll say "well, he really is just asking, and even if I think it's a stupid question, I can't accuse him of making such a ludicrous suggestion."

Similarly, the argument you are presenting - that unless something is explicitly stated, it cannot be inferred from the text - is wholly reliant on the reader being only functionally literate. That is, they can read, but they're bad at recognizing the overall theme of a piece, and have trouble putting the context together.

[rhett o rick]

122. I am guessing at your point. Are you saying that to question the Pres actions is similar to what

Glen Beck does? I am a Democrat, and I will question my president's actions whether he/she is a Democrat or Republican. I hope you would too.

[Chulanowa]

231. Did you read more than just the title of what I posted? n/t

[rhett o rick]

233. Of course. Now will you address my question? nm

[Chulanowa]

238. I guess in the case of people only being functionally literate, the prosecution can rest!

No. That's not what I said at all. Even a cursory reading of what I wrote should reveal that I said nor implied anything of the sort.

I said that very often, the "critics" use the same tactics, to the same purpose - they rely in the ignorance of the audience to protect a vilifying statement, a statement which they will then excuse as "just asking questions" or as being part of some sort of admirable endeavor like "I'm just holding his feet to the fire!" Because the other readers are unable to see context, they will join the person in shouting down and attacking someone who is better-equipped to see what is actually being said.

Just as you are doing.

To ask a question or to give a criticism is not "doing what Glenn Beck does." Launching invective, lies, attacks, and vitriol while disguising it as something else and counting on the ignorant to shield you from the repercussions of doing so is "doing what Glen Beck does."

[rhett o rick]

264. If I am only functionally literate, I still deserve not to be treated rudely.

I am familiar with Glen Beck's tactics. It is not at all related to honest attempts to question policies of our president. For you to even suggest such, eliminates you from honest discussion.

You accuse me of acting like Glen Beck, "Launching invective, lies, attacks, and vitriol while disguising it as something else and counting on the ignorant to shield you from the repercussions of doing so is "doing what Glen Beck does." What are your motives? Disruption?

[rhett o rick]

265. I find your post particulary offensive. Alert and ignore. TS to you. nm

[pscot]

130. Are you saying that anyone who criticizes the President

is just like Glen Beck? What level of criticism, and on which subjects, would be acceptable to you? Many of Mr. Obama's defenders seem to feel that any criticism must spring from base motives. That tends to chill the discussion. Do you actually hear and understand the arguments we're making?

[Jakes Progress]

167. That does seem to be what many here are saying.

It is the problem with an open internet. The conservatives take advantage of an opening by exploiting openness to spread their particular agenda. Many here would like to use the fact that the conservatives do asshole things to close off all discussion and criticism, thereby exploiting the problems for their particular agenda.

Some of them do hear and understand the arguments being made, but don't want them aired. Others don't hear and won't attempt to understand.

This does not bode well for an open DU. Just watch this thread.

[Chulanowa]

230. Did you read more than just the title of what I posted? n/t

[rhett o rick]

234. Yes now will you answer the question? nm

[quakerboy]

118. I wonder

I wonder how many on both sides, the critic and the uncritical are merely here to inflame the arguments.

I dont have a problem with criticism of the president. I don't have a problem w support of the president. But I am highly suspicious of every one on either side who posts with basically no real content other than division and looping non arguments that carefully avoid reaching any depth or real conversation on the issue at hand.

The plants seem fairly easy to identify, and they are never exclusively the ones who agree with ones self.

[xiamiam]

59. very easy to get people to lockstep..repeat repeat repeat..then its done.nt

[fascisthunter]

60. because we are not allowed to call them out

[ProudDad]

98. Because "liberals, Progressives and Leftists" don't own the presses? (n/t)

[leftstreet]

132. The article was referring to blogs and forums, not corporate M$M

Interactive media such as blogs and discussion forums still belong to the Peon Class

The Ruling Class messengers who foul the peoples' media need to be tossed out on their asses

[ProudDad]

173. Authoritarian followers will ALWAYS be more organizable

than actual thinking human beings?

[leftstreet]

181. There was a time when the Left in this country knew how to fight

That's all I'm saying.


And I don't disagree with you at all about how easy it is to manipulate people in authoritarian cultures

[ProudDad]

187. You've got that right...

"There was a time when the Left in this country knew how to fight"

But we got either shot, hung or co-opted big time after WW_One...

Then co-opted again after Vietnam...

Ironically enough...the final nail in the coffin was "the New Deal"...

[leftstreet]

207. Ironic indeed

the final nail in the coffin was "the New Deal"

:-(

[ElsewheresDaughter]

182. they have all the massive amounts of Freedom Works type of money behind them

[laundry_queen]

3. Not surprised. K&R nt

[Occulus]

6. Explains one whole hell of a lot that goes on here at DU, doesn't it? n/t

[xxqqqzme]

7. You betcha!

[Tx4obama]

12. +1000 n/t

[defendandprotect]

29. + 100%

[flyarm]

37. ++++++++!!!!

[malaise]

47. +1,000 n/t

[annabanana]

76. Yes. Yes it does. . . n/t

[Individualist]

81. ++

[Hansel]

103. Yes, it does. nt

[earth mom]

114. Yep, this is exactly what has happened to DU!

:argh:

[Renew Deal]

141. OMG your so right

:eyes:

[tabasco]

152. Lots of them on this thread. n/t

[patrice]

186. That was my first thought. Sock puppets driving people away and making

room for their brand of politics, WHATEVER that is.

[Kingofalldems]

202. I try to point it out but it falls on deaf ears

[laundry_queen]

219. F'n rights it does.

Every so often one of these revelations comes out. And it's ALWAYS republicans being paid to troll moderate or left-leaning sites, never the other way around. They're good too. Rarely do they break the rules enough to get a post deleted. I've picked out a few, as I'm sure others here have too. It's so frickin frustrating to see DU inch to the right more and more with every passing year. And the quality of the discourse has gone downhill so much from when I first got here. Unfortunately, there's pretty much NO way to weed these fuckers out.

[nc4bo]

245. I find myself wondering :wtf: when reading some comments on DU

Like, is this really a Democratic making this statements.

It's happened too many times to be coincidence but since I'm not trying to get banned, I STFU.

[Rex]

5. Not a big surprise, the enemy is in it to win.

The question is, are we? They will even take money from Communist China to win. Every patriotic American should think about that.

[glitch]

97. Yep, and so far they've raked in TRILLIONS. nt

[K8-EEE]

11. I wonder how many OBAMA ALREADY LOST IN 2012 people

Are RW lackeys. I mean even if you think such a thing what good posting it on a Democratic forum?

[Occulus]

15. Hmm. Let's pick that apart.

Obama once said that we have to MAKE him do XYZ progressive policy. This was during the campaign, IIRC.

He won.

Then something happened: on the one hand, there developed a crowd of people who were, and are still, consistently trying to "make him do it". Single payer, Medicare for All, repealing DADT, repealing DOMA, financial sector reform, campaign reform, and so on.

On the other hand, we have a group of people crying "ponies", "poutrage", "President Palin", "it's only been two weeks/months/years", and so on. That group consistently provides apologies and excuses for Obama for every compromise, every shift to the right, every bad policy decision, every last stab in the back including, for example, the way gay soldiers get their pay cut in half (!).

Which group of people wants Obama to lose? Which group wants his Presidency to be a stunning failure?

Which of the two groups is actually on the side of the Democratic Party?

[laughingliberal]

20. +1000 nt

[K8-EEE]

21. No I'm saying announcing he has ALREADY LOST

is bullshit IMO. Advocating for progressive policies is fine, well great, if we already are resigned to President Palin and VP Rubio we will see how progressive they are for us.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

51. That it is . . .

. . . if, by calling b/s you're asserting that he HASN'T already lost because the election hasn't been held.

For my part, I think it's entirely within the m/o of this admin to sit back, wait for the GOP to nominate the likes of Palin and then clean up. They're PRAYING the GOP nominates Caribou Barbie.

What will make their bowels turn to pure liquid is when the GOP sneaks up and nominates a Jebbie Bush. THEN it's time to start whistling past the graveyards.

[Greyhound]

127. According to the reich-wing idiots I have to talk to, it'll be President Romney and

Veep Whogivesashit.

[Radical Activist]

24. If people were honest and accurate in their criticism

instead of the constant chicken little hysteria then it would be much harder to see the difference between the two groups you imagine.

Most of the disagreements on this site are between people who are willing to criticize Obama and people who are willing to believe any spin as long as it reflects badly on Obama. Those are the two groups.

[Luminous Animal]

27. That is your opinion. Some opinions may differ.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. If people were honest and accurate in their defenses it would help a lot, too

:shrug:

[laughingliberal]

82. +1000 nt

[laughingliberal]

80. Many people are in very bad shape right now & are seeing policies that hurt them

either being supported by President Obama or not being fought against by him. Calling their fears and discouragement 'chicken little hysteria' is demeaning and, downright, mean. Having people who claim to be supporters of the President belittle them and accuse them of not acting in good faith is not going to endear them to the President. Telling them they have nowhere else to go as many do on this site every day is akin to rubbing their noses in it. People who need real help and are not getting it are well aware they have no where else to go but it doesn't seem the best way to build support for the President to taunt them with it. If I were a RW troll who wanted to discourage liberals, I'd think using these tactics would be a great start.

The failure of the faithful to ever acknowledge that any of the criticism might be accurate does not usually lead me to believe all of them are acting in good faith.

[donco6]

121. They're just too brutally honest for you.

Which is your problem, not theirs.

[patrice]

188. Nailed it!

[defendandprotect]

30. +1000% --

[meow mix]

54. +rec yeah i remember after the election

a lot of people were unified in saying Great!! Now we gotta Stay On Him and Hold his feet to the Fire!! Make sure we get progress!!

lol right
the idol worshippers are compeletly useless to pursuing policy, leave brittany alone!!1!

[AndrewP]

72. Leave Brittany alone! LOL

I happen to think the President HAS done some really good things, and is much preferable to a Right Wing nutjob being in the White House.

But I don't understand why some people get so offended at any criticism of the President. At bare minimum, assuming only sweetness and sugar plums, the way this deficit commission was presented was a poor job of politics. "After getting our asses kicked in the mid-terms, what are some other ways I can piss off my base?"

[xiamiam]

75. its unnatural to be constantly supportive of policies, which are unrepresentative

of the majority. I'm suspicious of those folks. I want Obama to surprise me. I would really love to wake up one day and see one progressive major issue rammed thru..no compromise. I would love to see the foreclosure program be effective. I would love it..I would love to see the troops in Iraq actually withdrawn..and in Afghanistan as well. I would love to see one person held accountable for this economic collapse..just one as a sacrifice would be great. Until then...no cheerleading from me.

[Mimosa]

55. Wowza. Sharp. I'd wondered about it too. n/t

[bobbolink]

106. Excellently expressed. Thank you.

:yourock:

[dgibby]

112. Excellent!

Wish I could rec this. Thanks.

[rhett o rick]

117. Well put. nm

[kenfrequed]

142. I agree

I think the inActivists that have been playing flack patrol for bad policy have been contributing to reducing the perception that President Obama and the democratic party actually have to deliver to their base.

[kenfrequed]

145. I will say it again

The most annoying and insane comments I got from that sort was when I was one of thousands here that was supporting single payer or public option and we were accused of "wanting a pony" or of being "Veruca Salt Democrats."

I had and still have great health insurance through my union negotiated plan, but somehow my wanting everyone to have great healthcare made me into a rich spoiled brat. I don't know how anyone rational could have insulted me in such a manner.

[Jamastiene]

159. +1000000

[Enthusiast]

170. It's pretty clear to me. nt

[ooglymoogly]

180. Well put. nt

[laundry_queen]

220. B-i-n-g-o. nt

[Scurrilous]

101. Oh no...how dare you.

The 'all is lost, I'm not voting for Democrats, there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans' posters CANNOT be plants.

Perish the thought!

[Number23]

147. lol! And what's funny is that they're working overtime and breaking into a sweat

trying to pretend that it's the people who SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATS that are the "plants." :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Man, you couldn't find this much comedy (or is it soul-crippling stupidity??) on an HBO special!!

[flamingdem]

23. REC nt

[MrsCorleone]

25. Thanks for posting. Be sure to read the referenced Alternet article at bradblog.com.

It goes onto more detail about how they are burying discussions.

[starroute]

26. It's a matter of gaming the rules

My kids, who are both into roleplaying games, always have a lot to say about that. Any system that's built on a basis of rules which are designed to keep things fair for everyone seems to inspire certain types of people to try to come up with ways to abuse them for personal advantage.

Liberals in general are people who believe in playing by the rules -- not because they're stodgy, but because they think it makes for a more enjoyable game for everyone. But a certain strain of conservative only believes in winning, and they don't care if they trash the system in the process.

For that reason, though, liberals can't fight back in the same terms. The best they can do is put on their geek hats and try to fix the rules to remove the loopholes. It's no different in our government and our economic system than it is on the average message board.

[defendandprotect]

28. Right wing given the choice .... will always take the LOW and SLEAZY road ....!!

[B Calm]

42. In other words: Republicans are NO GOOD!

[Enthusiast]

172. That is correct.

Republicans are the bad people. No question about it. Every single Republican I know is greedy and has racist inclinations, they hate environmental regulations of any kind and are usually blatantly sexist.

[defendandprotect]

32. K&R -- kick

[tsuki]

43. So, has anything changed since August? When the story was first

posted, DIGG did not seem to concerned.

[BlueCaliDem]

196. There was an influx of so-called Progressives, ex-PUMAs, and other

miscellaneous posters at Huffington Post, for one.

They're not really stupid. They know how to act like a disgruntled Democrat/Progressive, but I've unmasked two posing as a Hillary supporter and one posing as a Progressive angry with all Democrats.

Their inability to use well-defined arguments, and instead opt to name-calling everyone "Bots", is one. Their overuse of "LOL" in their comments, is two. There are other signs they show that I'd rather not post here in a public forum because I'm convinced they're here, too, and the last thing I want is to help them become a better AstroturfTroll.

I've even seen a couple use my way of writing certain words that can pass the Mods at HuffPo where it's heavily censored at times.

This is their job, and they're good at it.

[NashVegas]

240. Oh, Cut The Shit

95% of the so-called "PUMAs" were to the left of Obama. We were the ones who told DUers they were getting hosed with bait & switch.

[BlueCaliDem]

246. Oh, cut the bullshit. The PUMAs were NOT left of Obama

They were a group pissed off that a black Democrat won from a white female Democrat, and I thought they were as transparent as they are pathetic. And as a Liberal Democrat, and a woman, I couldn't give a shit about their baseless whining. They only turned me off with it.

I'm merely pointing out that they were the perfect front group to be infiltrated by members of Operation Chaos and other well-funded rightie groups who wanted McPalin to win. They were USED so that these paid AstroturfTrolls were able to spew faux outrage about this black man, and Democrat, who thought he could become President, and they did so on every progressive site out there.

[The Uncola]

45. I'd be willing to bet ..

.. they ply their trade here.

[Poboy]

52. I would not bet against you. -nt

[maryf]

192. they are legion...

and insideous...

[BlueCaliDem]

247. And you would win

that bet with flying colors.

[Skidmore]

46. Those folks are on my ignore list here.

And you can tell who they are. Some of them over the years have cracked me up with how transparent their "go lay waste to the libruls" user names are.

[Octafish]

50. Shutting down free exchange of ideas IS what NAZIs do.

They do the same thing to free elections, too.

[crikkett]

53. well, it's another reason not to be bothered with digg.com

I'm not bothered with them anyway.

[loudsue]

107. Ignore this issue and act like it's not happening?

Whether it's digg saying it or not, we all know full good and well that it is exactly how things are going down.

Corporate dominance in American politics will stop at nothing. They never have, and they never will.

[crikkett]

190. By not participating

I don't give them traffic.

It's similar to my strategy towards Glenn Beck: don't give him an audience.

[sufrommich]

56. Digg is like AOL, only idiots still bother with it. nt

[Common Sense Party]

250. I was about to ask, what IS Digg?

Never heard of it.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

57. Actual USERNAMES of unrec-ringleaders are at the source bradblog cites for the full

article: http://blogs.alternet.org/oleoleolson/2010/08/05/massive-censorship-of-digg-uncovered/ .

Do we have similar unrec-rings here at DU? Posts on certain topics (such as education reform) quickly build up massive numbers of UNRECS and stay stuck at net zero forever, unless they're posted by one of a handful of people.

[Reader Rabbit]

61. Education threads always get tons of UnRecs.

I've always wondered if it's an organized practice. Now I know.

The solution is to require a post along with an UnRec, so the UnReccer has to explain him or herself.

[disillusioned73]

65. That is a great idea

:dem:

[chill_wind]

74. Or just get rid if it. n/t

[xiamiam]

77. it is a great idea..would require more than reading the headline only

which many do..might solve some of this problem here

[blondeatlast]

78. blondeatlast likes this.

:thumbsup:

[donco6]

125. You just get SidDithers, posting "Unrec" to everything.

It doesn't really help that much.

[Posteritatis]

139. Funny, the DU admins regularly say it's not an organized practice

But what do they know? They only run the site and all that, so they're clearly wrong, right?

[xiamiam]

69. treading on dangerous ground there..it exists but no one admits to it

and if you call it out there are a handful of pat replies..rarely a dialogue beyond 'whining', ego, blah blah blah..

[butterfly77]

163. I have noticed since last year after the election...

the tone changed and the closer we got to this election it was on overdrive. They work in groups and shut down good informative posts with nonsense. They talk in groups and attack,attack,attack...

[fascisthunter]

62. sick weak unamerican trash... to get their twisted message of lies out there

they have to sabotage progressives slanted stories.

[disillusioned73]

64. Interesting...

I ran from politico, when it was obviously over run by the crazies, Huff has also disappointed me... It is a tricky game to sift through the genuine critics vs. "trolls"

It is obvious though that perception eventually becomes reality, and Dems need to do a better job fighting the perceptions that the right keeps throwing at the walls - I fear for 2012

[laundry_queen]

221. What the Dems need

is a kick ass marketing team. I'm taking basic marketing right now and I'm amazed how how little of it the Dems implement. It's really quite pathetic. The R's have a well-oiled marketing MACHINE with the media giving them free PR and the D's are like a little roadside sign next to the flashing neon billboard.

[xiamiam]

66. message management as well..started immediately after the inauguration..nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

67. K and R !!!!! Holy crap, this is sickening and yet, unsurprising.

"What gets me is, the lackeys doing the upvoting, censoring, and taking on many socks in order to post on progressive sites, are Americans, too. These unpatriotic Americans disguise themselves as a Democrat, a Liberal, or a Progressive only to sow seeds of anger and doubt.."

They act like this is all some big fucking football game, as if the stakes are merely their fucking goddamned egos and tribe loyalties. (Ever noticed how so many conservatives are major football heads?)

FUCK FUCK goddammit!

I'm a big believer in the critical influence of media, as it affects each individual consciousness--and that creates social consciousness, and that creates culture, which creates government policy, which shapes nations which creates a world, which affects individual quality of life....

and on and on world without end world without end

[MrScorpio]

68. And since many of those sites are referred to in DU threads...

Guess who gets left holding the bag around here!

That's very much for pointing this out.

[fascisthunter]

70. oh yeah... not like some of us couldn't tell

there have been stories throughout the year of conservatives doing shit like this on smaller levels. Not surprised... definitely not surprised.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. Of course that is the case, just being able to read will show that

to be true. Many such posters are used to drier forms of writing, so they forget when 'blogging' that their language reveals more than they think it does. Far more than they think it does.

[eleny]

73. A well funded "Unrec" crew

Hmmmm....

[hfojvt]

79. I must be the only one who does not get it

How does what those people do at Digg have anything to do with progressive sites? So they bury stories at Digg, how does that make DKos and DU more conservative?

[dbmk]

146. You are not alone

Seems like the OP is making some seriously unsupported conclusions/leaps of logic based on that story.

Might be happening - but nothing in that story says so.

[quinnox]

83. This explains a lot at whats been happening at DU

I suspected something was up the past few months. Supposed DUers defending typical conservative positions and pretending to be staunch supporters of President Obama. Its almost as if they are trying to be obnoxious as possible to drive support away from the president.

I never thought I would see DUers defending the Bush tax cuts or the potential cuts for social security or wanting to work together with republicans with the lame excuse given that its the only way for Obama to get elected in 2012, and yet I have seen all this lately.

Now I know why.

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. No, it doesn't explain anything about DU at all

The story isn't about people defending conservative positions in argument. It's about them coordinating votes, often with multiple accounts, on Digg to make stories less visible on Digg. Coordinated votes on Digg do not magically make conservative comments on DU more common. Hell, even recs and unrecs on DU don't actually change the content of posts on DU.

[nunyabidness]

150. Bigger picture. Look at the bigger picture.

[muriel_volestrangler]

153. The bigger picture: Conservatives exist on the internet

This is news to you?

[kristopher]

256. Don't you think that's a rather limited interpretation of the data?

While it is "proof" of wider activities by similar groups, it is certainly proof of concept for the strategy of using groups of posters to clandestinely target specific messages.

It also displays the problem with relying on a system that supposedly prevents the use of sock-puppets; which is one of the staples that is supposed to keep DU Dem friendly.

[Dinger]

113. Pass The Salt Too Please

:popcorn:

You're right of course. It's just that I didn't have the nerve.

[hfojvt]

175. well that reminds me of a morning show in Twintown

These morning jocks would periodically have a Reagan impersonator on their show and exchange quips with him, and invariably Reagan would say "and pass the Salt too". SALT 2 being, of course, the second round agreement of the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty.

[glinda]

84. They are coupling that with a massive disinformation campaign to turn us against

each other.
This is why we have an emergency situation in this Country in regards to the media and control of the air waves, cable, etc......
People can have all the ideas that they want but it is no good if not able to get out, to be able to organize, etc....

[GoneOffShore]

85. You're a little late to the party on this.

The story was originally on Brad Blog back on 8/5/2010.

Their influence on Digg has apparently been somewhat muted since then.

[valerief]

86. I figured half the people posting to blogs weren't "real" people. They're paid gravediggers. nt

[Kolesar]

206. The US CIA used to pay people to change stories on Wikipedia.com

The changes were traced to "internet addresses" at the CIA. They changed stories about foul ups in Iraq, the war on "terror", etc.

I am trying to imagine public relations firms doing this crap at the behest of a corporation. A bush crony corporation like Halliburton or Blackwater has limitless funds to work with.

[mstinamotorcity]

88. Okay now they know

But there have been many of us saying this for a long time now about infiltrators. That is why a good post will get an unrec mostly because they don't want a pattern of thought to accompany the op. They want you not consider other points of view that go against conservative ideology.

[indimuse]

KNR! n/t

[indimuse]

89. KNR! n/t

[bobbolink]

91. Highly recommended. My thanks go to the researchers!

And thanks for posting it!

:applause:

[ConservativeDemocrat]

92. Absurdly old news...

This was news about a month ago.

It hardly matters, because Digg is dying. People are flocking to Reddit.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Evasporque]

93. Time for real identities....

That will stop the unrec and troll activity in its tracks.

[tanyev]

171. This helped a lot on the local community blog at the Dallas Morning News website.

Nearly every post would have dozens of nasty, sniping comments when it was completely anonymous. All they did was require you to register with a real name--you could still use choose an anonymous user name to be displayed--and the comments have dropped to two or three per article, all very civil.

[Democat]

95. Digg is still around?

Haven't thought about them in years.

[nankerphelge]

217. Exactly...

They are a barely ran at this point in my mind.

[aquart]

96. I never use Digg. Do you?

[felix_numinous]

99. K&R!!

The fact that most people here may be unaware of this censorship may be evidence this story too was conveniently buried. If this is in fact old news, why didn't we hear about it?

The marginalization of people who simply want to hang on to their free will is astounding.

[NorthCarolina]

133. Proof that they are effective in burying that they feel needs to be kept under wraps.

I'm quite sure this expose would fit that criteria.

[glitch]

100. Didn't the Patriot Act make COINTELPRO legal again? So, some of this may be paid for by taxpayers.nt

[crazyjoe]

102. so? lets start our own digg.com.

[guruoo]

105. Perhaps the time has come for an independant web site dedicated to exposing...

the 'agents provocateur'.

"These unpatriotic Americans disguise themselves as a Democrat, a Liberal, or a Progressive only to sow seeds of anger and doubt,
so if you're wondering why progressive sites are suddenly more conservative than they were, oh, a year ago, you now know why."

[madrchsod]

108. "do`t let nobody turn you round...."

it`s a never ending war for justice....

[BrklynLiberal]

110. The RWingnut evil is very, very sleazy and clever...

[Individualist]

128. as are their DLC pals.

[BrklynLiberal]

138. yep. True that.

[mntleo2]

111. 30 + years ago, it happened in liberal churches too

...there was a concerted effort to infiltrate liberal and moderate churches to inflame divisions. It is called "Steeplejacking" and has been done since the late 1960s. Here is the link to a book on the subject: http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/07/steeplejacking_by_sheldon_culv.html.

It happened in my church in the late 1970s and it tore us apart. It seemed almost like a "conspiracy theory" thing and none of us could believe it at the time, but just this decade has there been documentation that not only showed the concerted effort to destroy us, it shows how it was working in thousands of other congregations around the country.

The way it works is that a "liberal" new member comes into the church and begins conversations in Bible Study, church councils, coffee hour and wherever they can using inflammatory issues such as abortion, gay rights, and the like. In our church it was about being "born again" and what that meant such as speaking in tongues and it took the rhetoric even further by claiming that you were not a "real" Christian unless you did speak in tongues.

The point is that Conservative entities know that causing divisions in groups works, especially when reasonable people at first cannot believe they are being infiltrated. They blame themselves and only see the microcosmic issue (like a disagreement with a spouse) and do not realize they are being manipulated.

They do it all the time with the middle class and the poor, with conservatives using law and policy to "debate" about poverty issues and how to impose demeaning and punitive laws on the poor, while "forgetting" to show the impact these laws have on all. Many poor see it, but sad to say the middle class jumps in with a vengeance and assumes the blame is on the poor for "choosing" their plight. They do not see that they are being obscured from seeing poverty for what it is and therefore stand with the rich and powerful with their policy making that not only hurts the poor, but the middle class as well. They are purposefully blinded to the fact that poverty is an institution based on racism, sexism, ageism and classism.

The media is just another wing-nut tactic to shut out information and disinform the public ~ and most importantly to cause dissension among the ranks. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt and let me tell ya, the shirt is stinky and stained beyond belief.

Cat in Seattle

[dgibby]

123. Great post.

Thanks for the link! I've seen it happen-my church(Presbyterian) has already split into several groups, but I hadn't heard it called Steeplejacking. How appropriate!

And now we're seeing the same with the GOP and the Tea Party, and the DLC and the democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

[pgodbold]

162. Steeplejacking: How the Christian Right is Hijacking Mainstream Religion

http://www.amazon.com/Steeplejacking-Christian-Hijacking-Mainstream-Religion/dp/097719728X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1289596457&sr=1-1


.
.
.

[GreenPartyVoter]

166. Yes, I saw that happen at the interdenominational Christian school my husband taught at. It was

conservative enough at the beginning anyway, but the the Baptists rolled in and made it far more so. My husband was sucking down Pepto like there was no tomorrow that last year he was teaching.

[tanyev]

169. Wow. Thanks for posting that.

I'm gonna have to get that book.

[maryf]

191. very interesting post

and maddening...

"a house divided cannot stand"...

[ThomCat]

270. Divide and conquer is a tried and true tactic. Law Enforcement

Uses constantly against any activist group, peace group, advocacy group, or civil group they want to destroy. We regularly hear about agent provocateurs deliberately provoking conflicts within groups, and then when any group stages a protest or a rally of any kind, those provocateurs provoke actions to deliberately give the police an excuse to arrest people.

I would be surprised only if infiltrators had NOT been used against liberal congregations.

It is a shame that infiltration, divide and conquer it works so well, and so easily. It takes very few people to destroy a large organization.

[DFW]

116. Like Unamuno told the Spanish fascists at the start of the Spanish Civil War

"You will win because you possess enough brute force, but you will not convince."

Indeed, the Spanish fascists did win the war (with Hitler's and Mussolini's help),
but now Hitler, Mussolini and Franco, for all the horror they caused, are in their
due place in history.

It just takes a painfully long time to get them there.

[AngryAmish]

120. We must take their children away from them

It is the only way they will learn.

[placton]

124. hey its just like - DU! n/t

[SidDithers]

126. Unrec...nt

Sid

[BlueCaliDem]

177. Why? What, in the post, warranted the Unrec, Sid? eom

[muriel_volestrangler]

200. The conclusions that you draw warrant an unrec

Your title says this has made progressive sites more conservative. Not only is the story not about that at all, it's illogical to draw that conclusion from what it is about.

It's about Digg, a neutral site, being gamed by conservatives so that liberal sites look less popular, and so may end up getting less hits. It is not about site content; it's about the visits sites get.

[Caretha]

216. I've fallen for it too

so don't take this personal. Sid has a very small....well you get the idea, and if he can get one Du member to respond....he wins more CHEETOS!!!

[robertpaulsen]

210. Not surprised. K&R. n/t

:kick:

[Gold Metal Flake]

213. Rec...nt

[pam4water]

131. There are so many organizations like that, they have to be getting "payed to post"

by some astro-turf organization.

[blackspade]

134. Lovely.

Just what the world needs.
More astroturf sock puppets drowning out the voice of everybody else.
Assholes.

[pattmarty]

135. So that's why there seems like we are getting more ass holes on liberal sites.

:sarcasm:

[Renew Deal]

140. This is why "unrec" cannot work on political sites including DU.

Recommend is a positive proportional feature. If there's lots of dems and reps on Digg, then both of their stories will float up. The bigger group will get more stories to the top. But unrec (bury) is too powerful in the other way. The larger group will automatically be able to bury stories into oblivion.

Unrec should be removed from DU.

[leftstreet]

161. Actually, unRec has proven that DUers as a majority are decidedly left

unRec is just fine the way it is

[Renew Deal]

164. Compare the current greatest page to rec only.

You won't see much difference, but you might not like what you see.

[muriel_volestrangler]

195. At the moment, the list is exactly the same threads, with a small difference in order

And that small difference is because 3 threads that are critical of the White House, Jon Stewart, or Democrats' chances in 2012, have also received significant unrecs.

That's pretty much exactly what I'd expect and want to see. It indicates that a significant number of DUers unrec when they think a thread hurts or divides Democrats or liberals. It's not conservatives doing some dastardly infiltration of DU; when something is a positive story about a Democrat, it does very well (eg "Pelosi won't budge on expiring Bush tax cuts" hasn't got a single unrec).

[joshcryer]

259. I was just looking at the Greatest Page and I agree completely. *Negative* posts get unrec'd.

Which is just fine. Overall, the Greatest Page is extremely progressive with what posts get voted up.

[muriel_volestrangler]

263. The thread currently most unrec'd is one berating DU for berating Obama

54 recs, but a balance of only +10, so it has 44 unrecs. So it seems the most fervent unrecers are not conservatives, or Obama defenders, but DU defenders.

Oh noes - DU has been infiltrated by DU fans!!!!

[joshcryer]

267. Yep, rec/unrec on a forum site tends to be used for moderation rather than agenda shaping.

I can't believe the fake outrage here.

[dbmk]

143. How do you go from conservatives gaming digg.com

..to liberal sites being more conservative?

They did not change the content of those other sites - at least as far as I can tell from the story.

(Would def not rule it out happening in other sites - but theres nothing in the story about it happening.)

And what makes Digg.com a Conservative Social Behemoth?

[AlbertCat]

144. Can we get rid of the stupid "unrecommend" button now?

[kenfrequed]

148. Well...

Now I have to start a damned Digg account to try to counter these jerks.

[kenfrequed]

158. How strange

I already posted something on a story and it was immediately slapped by some conservative who simply wrote the word "proof?" as a reply. He had three of his jackals recommending a one word question.

That is the difference between conservatives and liberals it seems. We only recommend something we think is interesting. They seem to use it as way to cheerlead or knock down something that they disagree with.

[librechik]

211. godspeed, brave ken

yes, their policies are unpopular and difficult to defend logically. All they can do is knock things down. They don't know how to create.

[kenfrequed]

149. darn it

I now have to start a digg account to counter these jerks

[Used2BNjock]

151. How about this story Jon Stewart?

the dems and republicans are equally bad my ass!

[femrap]

155. I knew this was going on....

you can smell them.

[paparush]

157. Does DU have an API? Skinner?

Open this site up to some independent analysis.

[krabigirl]

165. People still use Digg?

[ProgressiveLiberal]

174. This has been going on for YEARS ... and if you think Right Wingers are the only ones doing it ....

then I have a bridge to sell you.

It's been called "astroturfing" in the past and several major companies have been caught doing it - they hire people to go into blogs and spread a particular viewpoint. You can google up , right now, several agencies that advertise this service. These agencies actively recruit posters on various boards with a high posting count and pay them for their services.

If you think only right wingers have thought of this - think again. There is no reason to assume that Democratic agencies (such as the DLC) aren't using the same decade-old technique to spread their viewpoints here on DU and other Democratic boards.

You want to stop this sort of thing? It's pretty simple really:

1. Limit the number of recs and unrecs a given individual can do to a set value per day and/or arbitrarily assign/unassign the ability to rec/unrec to people on a random daily basis.

2. Limit the number of postings that a given person can do per day to a set value to avoid flooding threads with one persons viewpoint

3. Actively enforce anti-bullying measures against posters equally and impartially whether they support the current administration or they criticize it.

Three things and you've cut the ability of astroturfers to be effective by orders of magnitude.

[BanzaiBonnie]

176. And this is why unrec is a bad thing

It can be used for evil.

[UpInArms]

183. the power of the "bury" or "unrecommend" feature - the gift that keeps on taking

:sigh:

[patrice]

185. People who will support killing in the name of the "End Times" WILL DO ANYTHING.

including ending stare decisis and over-throwing the Constitution in the name of "God" http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109%3AS.520%3A

[dreamnightwind]

226. Holy shit

does that mean what I think it does? that's actual law?

[patrice]

228. No, it's just in the Senate Judicial Committee and there are people who say it's so

absurd that it will never see the light of day, but . . . . think of all of the crazy stuff we have been seeing and thinking "that's just tooooo crazy to happen." I know I thought that about the Invasion & Occupation of Iraq when it was first floated as a possibility and then there's 9/11 itself, triggered by Project for a New American Century's plan to Invade & Occupy Iraq, written in 1997, that some very powerful "experts" thought, as in "bin Laden determined to strike U.S.", was too crazy to happen too.

[dreamnightwind]

236. Whew!

Quit scaring me like that, I'll believe just about anything is possible these daze. I wonder who introduced that legislation...

Right there with you re the Iraq the Sequel (actually even the first one), I thought there was no way they could ever sell that to the country. PNAC & 9/11 too, I don't know exactly what went down, but it was certainly at least a wink and a nod, probably much more than that.

Definitely more craziness ahead, probably Sarah and/or Jeb, then some more all-expenses paid frolics in the sand for our military.

[patrice]

248. There is no way in fucking hell TRANSNATIONAL MIC walks away from what they invested in

rooting WAR in America's Middle-Class jobs' base.

Solidarity, dreamnightwind!

[patrice]

229. BTW, one of the cosponsors of The Constitution Restoration Act, Sam Brownback, was just elected gove

nor of Kansas, an event widely assumed to be preparatory to running for President in 2012 or 2016.

[dreamnightwind]

237. Yeah I know about Brownback

a real piece of work. I don't think he could become POTUS, but governor is bad enough. Hope he's not your governor. I'm in California, we just went back to Brown, much better than Brownback.

[patrice]

249. Indeed!

If we were on HuffPo, I'd Fan you.

[NorthCarolina]

189. These folks out themselves every time they dis Liberals like Kucinich or Grayson, or

when they attack Progressive sites like FDL. If you haven't noticed them you just haven't been paying attention. They are organized, I'll give them that, but they really are quite obvious. They have been very effective here on DU, transforming the site to one where conservative DLC principles are tolerated over Liberal/Progressive push back against the DLC.

[nadinbrzezinski]

193. Even DU is not in the list, I suspect it is in the list

and yes, we have felt it here too.

In fact, I suspect scripts is part of it.

[Kolesar]

208. Hmmm

that's a thinker!

[maryf]

194. K&R

Great post...

[fadedrose]

197. K&R

[amborin]

198. k&r so they don't like Fire Dog Lake?

[BlueCaliDem]

266. Fire Dog Lake is included in the list. eom

[Individualist]

199. K&R

[onestep]

201. nasty bastards

[SemperEadem]

205. I WILL NEVER CHANGE MY WAYS TO THE POINT THAT I WOULD EVER BECOME A CONSERVATIVE

That is some failed thinking by this idiot fuck.

[paulflorez]

209. People leaving DIGG for REDDIT

DIGG has seen a lot of people leave and is now sputtering around in viewership numbers:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/digg.com

Meanwhile competitors like REDDIT have skyrocketed in viewship around the same time:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/reddit.com

[Turborama]

218. Digg investigates claims of conservative 'censorship'

In LBN August, didn't get much attention then for some reason: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4494514

[joshcryer]

222. Conservatives believe in, above all else, the almighty contract.

Their behavior, therefore, on Digg, is contractual. They are not doing anything that the system isn't allowing by design. Conservatives love this sort of shit, and liberals are stupid to use these types of systems to begin with.

DU is a notch better, and I highly doubt that such a conspiracy is going on here because the admins would notice it.

[djp2]

223. I wonder how many...

1000+ post TROLLS there are on DU???

[joshcryer]

227. Heh, you don't make it to 1000+ without doing a lil trolling.

The 50k+ posters is all they do.

[JDPriestly]

225. If you read Cenk's recent article on Huffington Post condemning

Glenn Beck and Fox News for spreading lies about Soros, you will notice that the top comments -- at the head of the comment section -- are by conservatives. Don't these folks have anything better to do?

[Mimosa]

235. Won't use the 'NZ' word but D.U. has changed...

Many of the 'sensible centrists' posting at D.U. would actually have been very comfortable as John Lindsay and Nelson Rockefeller 'liberal Republicans.' There is no place for truly secular liberal Republicans in today's right wing nearly fascist Republican Party. So they have no 'home'.

They have entered the right fringe of the Democratic Party. They are still laissez faire globalist semi-conservatives. They are not comfortable with the FDR/Truman Democratic policies.

And they are fighting to make FDR Democrats appear to be the 'Commies' and marginilise us.

I wish they'd GO BACK to their home party and reform it to where even Nixon might recognise it. The Blue Dog Dems are dragging Democrats into a sinkhole. The Party is not perceived as the party which protects the working class.

[NashVegas]

239. Of Course, Nothing Like This Ever Occurs On DU

Especially not during election season.

[joshcryer]

261. Look at the Greatest Page.

Tell me how it's "conservative leaning."

[NashVegas]

268. "LET IT SINK!!!"

Or perhaps, you've forgotten.

[kristopher]

271. Let what sink? Forgotten what?

[BenjaminFranklin]

241. add yahoo's story comments

Read the comments on yahoo stories and you'll see these trolls at work there, too. Funny thing, they're so transparent that they accuse liberals of the shit they're engaged in. I see the little conservative trolls accusing liberals of being "paid by Soros" all the time. I hate conservatives.

[47of74]

244. So Yahoo brought the comments section back...

I remember how they ditched it a few years ago because of all the trolls who had been infesting the comments sections of various news stories.

[Kolesar]

242. The Democrats destroyed the RW in the blogosphere in 2008 w/ well reasoned arguements

RW communications consists of incomplete thoughts, lies, and wedge-issue politics. RWers cannot compete when it is necessary to cite sources and write complete theses. Hence, they depend upon radio and Fox Network to verbally create messages that "seem right" to viewers: racism, Islamo-hating, plus that disingenuous messaging that the Republicans represent the common people's interests.

This is how they responded. The republicans had unlimited money by passing public money to bush cronies through government contracts. The republicans have unlimited money in the energy business, the House of Saud, and China.

I doubt that this is a grassroots effort. They probably use PR firms to hire RW-aholes to peruse the internet around the clock and through the week and weekends.

[Uncle Joe]

254. On edit, kicked but too late to recommend.

Thanks for the thread, BlueCaliDem.

[xiamiam]

255. this is interesting

the day before i posted a thread about the unrec crew which got locked..as divisive, etc...there were a lot of folks un-rec because i mentioned un-rec'ing..one person called me craven and shallow.?..go figure...call the whambullance, etc...and it was mostly in defense of the feature...i am suspect of a co-ordinated effort to squash threads...its my instinct, i'll go with it regardless of what anyone tells me..rules of course were brought up as well as was i questioning the admins..all i said was i hate the unrec crew..which was not aimed at a person but instead at group action within the site..

what i noticed is that very few of those folks have posted on this thread

[Pisces]

257. DU is full of infiltrators. They are welcomed with open arms here if they are ripping the Obama

administration. Even suggesting that he was not elected by popular vote, that this is an experiment gone wrong. Hmm. I wonder what is meant by experiment since he was elected in the same way all
of the other presidents were elected. Yet that viewpoint is A-ok on DU.

[joshcryer]

260. The OP is talking about a voting feature on a site. Look at DU's Greatest Page.

There probably are infiltrators, corporate shills for various industries, but overall the Greatest Page surprisingly reflects a progressive agenda through and through.

The OP doesn't apply to DU.