Burying Ron Paul: Digg.com and the Free Republic

First, if you reading this post and have never heard of digg.com, stop reading now and head over there, check it out. Better yet, spend a week over there to see how the site grows on you... then come back. My own impressions of it are unimportant, but what I will say is that I've found it one of the single most interesting real-time experiments on the web.

If you have spent time on Digg, you'll know that there is something there for everyone, but generally the cream rises to the top. For breaking news, it provides a good pulse as an aggregator, with enough off-topic links to keep it fun.

It's a simple concept, a bunch of people sign up and submit links, if registered users like it, they digg it. The more diggs any link gets, the better chance it has of being front paged at digg.com, which in turn means a huge rush of traffic to the popular stories or videos. I think of it like a vast user generated memeorandum.com for the entire internet, a portal for links that a substantial number of people take the time out of their days to mark as dugg (for this discussion, it's important to keep in mind that Digg is a website with well over 1M unique page views daily, and that being front paged at Digg is currently one of the fastest routes to fame and shame on the interwebs).

The title for this post may be a bit cryptic for people who don't visit Digg, so I'll try to explain what "Burying Ron Paul: Digg and the Free Republic" is referring to. Burying is the opposite of digging, so when a user doesn't like a link, they bury it. Ron Paul is a Congressman from Texas, and GOP presidential candidate, who has had many stories about him front paged at Digg in recent months (I would argue a disproportionate and irrational number given his relevance to the politics I've studied during the Bush era), the most recent of which is a link to a post about him on the Free Republic. While I regularly bury Ron Paul 'Truther' links, this one seemed exceptional.

I won't go into the reasons why any website of standing steers clear of linking to freerepublic.com, these are well understood by political blog readers, but I will note that a quick survey of rightwing blogrolls shows the Free Republic not getting any link love from even the more severe members of that set (also missing, Stormfront).

So back to Ron Paul. By some mystery, he has become a cause celebre on one of the internet's leading websites, and as a result of this, stories mentioning his name are consistently dugg up, which brings us to this morning when a story concerning Ron Paul was prominently linked on the front page of digg.com, with link going to what might be termed a 'hate site'.

This almost too-perfect groundswell of support for Ron Paul that has now legitimized the Free Republic as front page material at one of my favorite websites. Great.

There is a certain self-reinforcing quality to support for Ron Paul on Digg, one that is helped along by the relatively small number ofpolitical news sites and blogs that are promoted to the front page withregularity. For those who have the misfortune to be learning everything they know about politics through Digg, rather than through a wider exploration of the political media and blogosphere, it would be difficult to determine exactly who has earned credibility, other than judging by who is popular. This may work in some cases, but not in others, and I think the Ron Paul infatuation falls into the latter category. I'd like to think that the users of Digg were not susceptible to the sort of ignorant hive mind that would promote a website like the Free Republic, but that hope is no longer operative. Evidently, Ron Paul love requires no research or discernment to be exercised when supporting your man.

The unlikely arc of Ron Paul's rise to popularity on Digg is interesting, because this is a case where the alleged wisdom of crowds is now shaping the public debate (indeed, high exposure on Digg seems to be the first breakthrough for candidate Ron Paul's presidential election bid). Yet the wisdom appears, in large part, to be forming without the broader context given by the political media and blogosphere.

In the end, the link to the Free Republic raises all sorts of questions about how the social web will contributeto tomorrow's political conversations. To me, the Ron Paul meme illustrates a pretty serious failure of the social web (or Web 2.0,  as exemplified by Digg) to be discerning in its consumption and promotion of content. I love digg.com, but front paging Free Republic...seriously, WTF?

* An interesting conversation, which I won't even try to undertake, could examine how the Ron Paul meme was introduced at Digg, how it became an institutionally normalized behavior to digg news concerning him within the community, and what the impact of this meme might be on 'politically virgin minds' whose orientation presumably tends toward the progressive.

* It also should be noted that the early focus of Digg was on technology, and that the prevailing view of its users is that they are tech savvy, educated, and lean politically to the center-left if anywhere at all. The increasing number of political stories on the front page is a relatively recent development, and many Digg users may not be familiar with what political sites have credibility, so might not be blamed for promoting Free Republic if one is feeling charitable.

UPDATED: Via Wonkette, comes word of Ron Paul's old political newsletter that sheds some unflattering light on his racial views. This is post worth updating for Wonkette's title alone: "dept. of who's your candidate now, myspace morons?"

Which raises the question that if Digg users are confronted by the reported racism of the Congressman, will they side with the enlightenment, or with the bandwagon?

Comments

[Alex]

Feel free to discount this observation, but here is my impression of how Ron Paul took Digg by storm [note - speculation]:

A few months ago, certain diggers began to submit stories about Ron Paul, many of them from the lewrockwell.com website, which is sort of like an online nursing home for libertarian cranks. Then, through some combination of sock puppetry, 'freeping', and genuine agreement of right-leaning libertarians, Ron Paul became a familiar name to see in the upcoming political stories section, accompanied by enough diggs to pique the curiosity of the less politically aware diggers (and this is not a slam on them) who then followed the seeming herd. And now the herd is somewhat real, at least on Digg...

If I were to raise the speculation level to code red, I'd guess that most well meaning users digging Ron Paul agreed once with some quote of his somewhere (and I could be wrong about the attraction) saying that the war is wrong, or that the constitution is being shredded, or that the government should give people privacy, and they have been digging him ever since, no matter the source or context. There is a good point to be made for those points, and I am not unsympathetic, but Ron Paul seems to have become a lazy shorthand for those issues on Digg, one that allows people to shut out receptiveness to more accomplished and relevant political actors who are pursuing those issues in more concrete terms, day in and day out.

My problem here is that a young generation of early adopters seem to be jumping onto the bandwagon with no further inquiry into the causes behind those complaints, if they are what in fact is driving the popularity of Ron Paul on Digg.

Please excuse the meta/tech nature of this post, perhaps trivial in the grand scheme of things.

[granny]

Really good, mega important, post.

[Chris Huston]

An interesting pattern recently. Remember a few posts down where Fox News had a poll and it listed Ron Paul as winning? Buzz around several Conservative blogs is Ron Paul supporters are spamming straw polls.

Littlegreenfootballs took his name off their poll for who won the last debate because they claimed Ron Paul supporters were skewing things.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25504_Ron_Paul_Supporters_Spamming_Our_Poll_Again&only

One a somewhat related note, was anyone here as offended as many on the right seem to be by Ron Paul saying that the US was not attacked solely due to bin Laden being evil, seeing our freedoms and declaring they must end?

[Alex]

I think I saw the link to that story Chris mentions about LGF polling, but didn't follow it because, frankly, Little Green Footballs is little better than Free Republic. They're kind of like the crazy uncles in the attic of the blogosphere, both drawing an audience that polite company should not be forced to sit with.

"was anyone here as offended as many on the right seem to be by Ron Paul saying that the US was not attacked solely due to bin Laden being evil, seeing our freedoms and declaring they must end?"

Sounds like the beginnings of a great straw man argument...inevitable response from right wingers to any answer, "So, you're saying we weren't attacked because Bin Laden is evil?"

[Chief Editor: Todd]

That's really interesting. I go to Digg for a lot of my news -- some of which I put on this site. I did notice an up-tick of spamming on the part of Ron Paul supporters. They are also quite active on Youtube as well. The Ron Paul for President Campaign even linked to one of The Blue State's videos a few months ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZmPS0XmeBw

[The Mexican]

So many people dislike one of my psychology mentors, Noam Chomsky, because, with him as likened to the response that Ron Paul espoused, he (and Ron Paul) loves this country enough to be disgraced and benumbed by the shockingly and annoyingly hypocritical stance the nation chooses to engage in foreign policy. Noam Chomsky writes entire books about what the US does that damages our own credibility to the world and weakens our foreign diplomacy, not because he hates America, but because he doesn't want to see us become the big-bad bully to which the same rules and similar standards we expect everyone else to apply and follow somehow don't apply to us--he doesn't want that. I think that's the same reason with Ron Paul running for President under the the Republican banner of nomination; he doesn't want his cherished party to deviate from its Founders' heroes like Thomas Jefferson, Ab Lincoln, etc. He wants to revive the original aspects and principles on which the Republican party started, thrived, and evolved since before the Democratic party was even around, like minor (or no) foreign involvement, constitutional priority, strong military, etc. Like I said before, I'm pulling for Ron Paul for the Republicans. And his answers to loaded questions are so strong, efficient, and resolute. He's damned good.

[Chris Huston]

Ron Paul's certainly the only Republican that represents classic fiscal conservatism. Even with LFG and freerepublic, I sometimes take a look to see what sort of talking points are being passed around, and a few articles discussing Ron Paul started using the term 'libertarian' with almost the same epitaphic vigor as you would see them use the term 'liberal.'

I like Ron Paul a whole lot because he's consistent and principled. He wanted Clinton to be impeached because he lied under oath about having sex and he supported the Libby conviction because Libby lied under oath about the Plame affair. I saw this position unravel at the same time as the other major candidates were shocked, shocked, that someone would be convicted of perjury when there was no underlying crime.

It's been social issues that have kept me a Democrat more than economic issues, but the GOP has never appealed on that front either because all my days of political awareness have been in the age of post 9/11 where Bush has increased spending, increased the size of government, and led an agressive foreign policy.

Maybe the crazy doomseday predictions of the GOP dying from the current administration will come true and people like Ron Paul can make a new party that can have a more constructive discourse with the Democrats and politics will be dinner table safe once more.

[The Mexican]

And that's another thing I wanted to follow-up in my last post. Ron Paul, like most all conservatives, believes in the moral obligation to our own personal responsibility for our actions--very Kantian theme, that is. Like with us and the world at large, we must be held accountable for our involvement in others' affairs where we put in, like situations regarding Iraq, Iran, Korea, Russia, etc. When guys like Hannity spark out with, "We, America, didn't cause 9/11," it shows how ignorant he is (and they are) from our arrogant perspective: that if we admit any culpability to any given situation, then we commit capitulation of our entire stance--which is so woefully fated. Sure, the Americans didn't cause it directly, but our foreign policies and our diplomatic stances over years and years will illicit some blowback. If one applies some pressure on a situation or a mechanism by which pressure is applied, one must expect blowback in minor or major forms; and if such blowback is endured, it should not be continued perpetually by more pressure which caused it, as what is happening in Iraq. And since there is this pressure, one must accept responsibility, not resign to self abnegation for one's practices and proceedings.

If GOP preaches the moral obligation of personal responsibility, it must partake of accepting where the line of moral acceptance is in the situation given. And when I see Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales, George Tenet, and now the new War Czar position (which really is another fall-guy placement), I see how warped a noble idea like personal responsibility can be ruined, when people that preach moral high ground go beyond hubris to justify why it does not apply to them, or why it should be revoked for them just this once; for recent example, Gonzales saying he can't recall anything but assures everything went well, and that while it was handled ineptly, why he should continue leading the way, regardless of his inability to actually be the leader and take responsibility.

[Paul Levinson]

Good discussion.

But a factor that needs further discussion is the bury-brigade response to Ron Paul stories. My sense is that there is a feverish battle that takes place, behind the scenes, between Diggers eager to Digg or Bury anything having to do with Ron Paul.

In response to Granny - here are my thoughts on Ron Paul's response to Giuliani last night: What Ron Paul Didn't Say to Rudy Giuliani

[JesuBub]

The recent increase in Ron-Paul-related dugg sites makes perfect sense. There was no reason for him to be news until his candidacy. He's been a virtual lone wolf in the House on issues like war, civil rights, fiscal responsibility, etc. Those are all issues that the media have a global slant on, so it's understandable that you haven't been allowed to hear about him... yes, allowed.

Paul's transparent Constitutional positions make him seem like a wacko to you because the last 3-4 generations have been weened off the importance of having a Constitutionally-limit government. Centralized power ultimately comes down like an iron fist.

History will wipe its hindside with this Blue State commentary.

[Alex]

"Paul's transparent Constitutional positions make him seem like a wacko to you because the last 3-4 generations have been weened off the importance of having a Constitutionally-limit government."

You're off by a longshot here, Jes. The last time I went on a season-long trip (the first in years), the only two books I brought with me were the Constitution/Declaration, and the Federalist Papers. That doesn't make me a law expert, but studying them helped me to appreciate our system of governance better.

Which brings me back to the Free Republic, and a host of other so-called conservative sites that cheered so loudly, and for so long, the Unitary Executive theories and practices of this Bush administration. Is this site now credible to you because they have a post about Ron Paul, despite the strong authoritarian tendencies of that community itself?

You say:

"Centralized power ultimately comes down like an iron fist."

I say that many, many good people are devoting time and effort, in their own ways, to defending the letter and spirit of the Constitution, to prevent anything like that... it's ironic that you'd be so quick to slam this website for questioning digg linkage to FR.

[granny]

A return to the ever expanding Ron Paul discussion, which has certainly taken some interesting turns since I commented this morning.

My original comment was meant to applaud Alex's effort to shed some light on the potential pitfalls of the blogsphere/political discussion sites. I think that's important.

Those far younger than I are reading and learning here, and because of the atmosphere in which they have grown up, I am concerned that they are less inclined to read between the lines, or look critically at glib solutions and positions, easy answers.I believe there is an obligation to share our experience in that sense.

I don't know what about that comment gave Paul Levinson the desire to link me to his post: "What Ron Paul did not say to Guiliani" on another site. But I went and read it.

Interestingly enough, in an odd way, my response to Mr.Levinson's post relates back to this issue of reading between the lines.

In brief (maybe) - I did not see the episode that entails Ron Paul's response to Guiliani, so I don't know what he was asked. And I don't know what he said. IF he said that US Foreign Policy and intervention in the Middle East was a seminal factor in the 9/11 attack...he's right. Did he say that US Foreign Policy in the Middle East "excused" the 9/11 attack? I bet not. Did he say that the atrocity of the act was "justified"? Or that the deaths and harm to innocents were "deserved" because of US intervention in the Middle East? I bet not. Or even that he did not grieve and suffer emotionally because the cause lay at our door? I doubt it.

To be "shocked" by this piece of news rather resembles a temper tantrum, it seems to me. "Shocked and grieved" is a standard device of the current punditry and talking heads, used to change the subject. Todays' listeners are used to hearing the wailings and rantings of victimization - the apologies, the excuses, the digressions, the hyperbolie of victims, and villains, and evil doers. It leads the discussion away from the issue. We're busier trying to extract meaningless apologies from perpetrators, than addressing the problem.The issue here is NOT the event. The issue is the cause. And that's what we all need to be talking about, facing, and working to repair.

So, yes, I certainly concede that there might well have been a nicer way to phrase the statement. But there may well not have been, and still have said what needed to be said.

Our perilous obsession with "couching' the truth in palatable phrasings, and comfortable words ... of burying reality in rhetoric, has brought us to a Constitutional crisis, a National crisis, and a world crisis.

And temper tantrums when we are asked to face facts keep us from discussing what must be discussed.

D. H Lawrence once asked (and I am not quoting verbatim) "Why should we love peace, when war is so obviously vile?" i.e. why do we talk about how passionate we are about peace, when we should be focused on how vile war is. There's a big difference. And not understanding that is making a big mess!

[Chris Huston]

In some ways I was more satisfied that Paul didn't pic a nicer way to phrase things. It certainly doesn't win him primary votes, but it felt like a bit of fresh air.

For me, at least, I've found myself suffering the effects of word fatigue as over the last six years the attack on the World Trade Center has been invoked countless times to justify countless things. All the Republican speeches, decrying the horrors of 9/11 have desensitized me to the event.

I was a sophmore in highschool, it was second period when they turned on the TV's and started showing the buildings on fire......but that isn't important, because that's not what I remember when I think of 9/11 anymore. The second the date is uttered, I suffer an internal groan and feel the emotional equivalent of watching a man kick a dead horse over and over. I thought that day would be my generation's Kennedy assasination. They say everyone knows exactly where they were.....It's been years since I last reflected on what I was doing that day.

Robert Newman once remarked there is a traditions of seeing wars or even battles as one offs, in no way linked to economies or policy. 9/11 has obtained the mythical status of the day when out of nowhere evil Islamocommiefascists descended upon New York, attempting to kill as many of us as possible because they hated our freedom. When this 9/11 is invoked, it feels hollow and fake, and that is what I hear invoked all the time.

Ron Paul, for a moment, talked about the actual 9/11, one that was horrible, and horrible enough that telling me it was horrible isn't necessary, but also an event that relates to how America interacts with the world, an effect that inevitably has causes, a continuation of history. and then Rudy threw the myth back into place amongst thunderous applause.

[This is only a Test]

Re:Comparing Free Republic to Stormfront.

Cordially, fuck you!

Any decent point you may have regarding Digg and Ron Paul was completely lost as you compared conservatives to nazis.

FR was as infected with "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" during his Presidency as Daily Kos or any other site is with "Bush Derangement Syndrome" during GW's. It's why I stopped reading FR, and never started with the others.

Free Republic posters were (and are) a lot of things, including rude, crude, short-sighted and crazy, but that doesn't make them nazis.

I think Blue State is well written, but chock-ful of lefty defeatists who can't wait for the day that we bail on the Iraqis the way we bailed on South Viet Nam.

That, however, doesn't make you communists.

Call a spade a spade. DON'T call crazy right-wingers nazis. Every God-fearing, freedom loving American on FR would be put up against the wall and shot if the nazis were ever in charge. And you would be right next to them, all executed as "foes of the regime".

Off-hand comparisons to mass-murdering totalitarians may be well received in the forest of Bush-haters, but it is untrue, unfair and downright lazy writing to do.

Stop losing debates by calling your political opponents fascists.

Jerk.