Is It Me, Or Is Social News Full Of Crap?
I know you DIGG-lovers out there are probably going to bash me for this post. But it’s been quite a long time that I’ve noticed how popular stories there tend to be crappy most of the time. I mean, come on! I’ve had enough of weird and offbeat news from DIGG. But add on other social news sites like Netscape? Kind of makes me wonder why I still check out these sites every so often.
Still, you can’t blame me for complaining. Who would’ve thought putting social along with news would result to something not so desirable? Who would’ve ever thought citizen journalism would closely resemble yellow journalism?
Does this mean that society is not fit to decide what information is to be considered important? Does this mean we still need information gateways, like newspaper editors and publishers, and teachers and librarians. Has social media failed? Or does this simply mean that the DIGG crowd (and those of other social news sites) are mostly weird, offbeat people themselves?
Probably the latter.
I’ll believe in social news when it’s not dominated by a single clique (i.e., the techie crowd who seem to dominate the popular social news sites). In an argument, those who are loudly vocal may not always have the most valid points. When everyone has an equal say, then social news would be more believable.
What do you think?