Dante needs to construct another circle of Hell for Diggtards. It’s easy to envision two opposing walls of Digg-tards writhing in the flames, condemned forever to be looking at each other fondly. In Digg-Tard heaven, there are two commandments. Thou shalt love Barack Obama. Thou shall not tolerate those who do not love Barack Obama. This translates to “Digg” or “Bury” in the Diggtard language. Diggtardism is an absolute state of mind. Digg is self-stimulating absolutism. Conflicting opinions must never rise to the top in the Land of the Digg-tards. There is only one single point of view, and Digg-tards must work together to advance it. Original thinking is the Original Sin of Digg. Originality must be stifled by convergence of Digg-tards to bury it whenever it appears. Diggtardism and Obama are joined in the only battle Diggtards will ever fight. The struggle for sameness, the championship of weakness, the triumph of solipsism.
I’m not the only one who thinks so. When your corruption is so widely known that it appears on Wikipedia, then you’re in trouble. Here are some excerpts from the wikipedia listing of “Diggtard:”
Digg has come under criticism for varying reasons. Most disparagements are centered on the site's form of user-moderation: users have too much control over content, allowing sensationalism and misinformation to thrive. The site has also suffered the risk of companies paying for stories submitted to the site, similar to the phenomenon of company-attempted Google bombing.
Other critics feel that the site's operators may exercise too much control over which articles appear on the front page as well as the comments on Digg's forums. Some users complain that they have been blocked from posting, and their accounts disabled, for making comments in the user-moderated forums that conflict with the personal interests of Digg's operators. The existence of the "bury" option has also been criticized as undemocratic and due to its anonymous nature, unaccountable, which often leads to expungement of criticism of hotbed topics that do not mesh with the prevailing view of the community. Another criticism in this area has been how a faulty or misleading article can reach many users quickly, blowing out of proportion the unsupported claims or accusations (a mob mentality).
Certain Digg users have been accused of operating a "Bury Brigade" that tags articles with which they disagree as spam,thus attempting to bury stories critical of Digg. One commentator states that one of the site's major problems:
...is the ability of a small number of users to "bury" stories without accountability. Burying news is meant to help separate spam and inaccurate stories from the general morass of ordinary, viable stuff. But there's long been the suspicion that plenty of users use it to get rid of stories about things they don't like (eg political parties or corporates) - since burying a story is much more powerful than simply voting against it.
It has been reported that the top 100 Digg users controlled 56% of Digg's frontpage content, and that a niche group of just twenty individuals had submitted 25% of the frontpage content. A few sites have raised the problem of groupthink and the possibility that the site is being "manipulated", so to speak.