More than 30 % of the news are read in social networks. Often these news are a popularity contest were the "likes" prevail and the "likes not" are pruned. This can be exploited and big companies and groups of people can make unwanted news dissaper.
Like it or lump it, the major reason that determines whether any given online story will get read or not is how much play it gets on news link sharing sites and social networks like Digg, reddit, and StumbleUpon. Unlike earlier news sharing sites like Slashdot, these sites have no central editorial control. Instead, the stories that get prominent play on these sites is determined entirely by readers. That sounds like democracy in its most basic form, but in practice what it really means that stories can be buried from sight by abusive users with an ax to grind.
It looks like pro Linux and anti Microsoft news have a tendency to dissapear:
I became aware of this because in the last few weeks I've had several stories that were pro-Linux and anti-Microsoft-Linux, it doesn't get any faster and Macs, Windows 7, and Linux--first became popular on Digg, and, an hour later they were buried.
Do you feel a theory coming up?
But, that said, Digg admits that group of users-say Microsoft employees, partners, and supporters-can "abusively bury content." I'd add, not just 'can, but do.'
And what are the implications?
In other words, when Microsoft supporters bury stories, they're making sure tens to hundreds of thousands of readers never see them.
This is far more though than just a 'inside baseball' technology news story though. I'm told by friends in other branches of journalism that they see the same kind of thing, except in their cases, its things like stories about political unrest in Pakistan. You see while Iran's unrest is getting coverage in the online news popularity contest, Pakistan's troubles aren't, so they're invisible. Both are important
So how do you feel about only getting the news of the "majority"?
Source Computerworld
