The Michael Arrington (see “Digg vs. Diggers?”) fueled indignation effused this weekend by “top” Diggers recalls the recent outraged Facebooker “riots.”
What do the current minority of disgruntled Diggers have in common with the past minority of restive Facebookers?
All are non-paying users of free Web based services “threatening” the owners of the sites which they use at no-cost.
What is the nature of the threats? Operate your sites the way we want you to, or else.
Or else what?
We, non-paying users, will take our “community” elsewhere. Really? Where to?
To another free-to-use Web service, one that will show us the appreciation we deserve by operating the site the way we say it should be operated.
Contrary to popular perception, Facebook owners were not cowed by turnkey, online petitions emanating from a minority of Facebookers. Digg owners also do not appear to be cowed by blogosphere, online letters emanating from a minority of Diggers.
Is passionate indignation always a good thing? In “Facebook ‘activism’: how about a greater good?” I note:
In the old (very old) days, student activism meant something, stood for something and required some effort and personal risk taking. In the 1960’s, students took to the streets and literally put their lives on the line in the hopes of spurring a more humane society.
In today’s Facebook and MySpace worlds, however, student “activism” is self-centered and effortless. In “Homework for Facebook students: hack your own social network” I cite a Facebook “activist” on why he believes changes to Facebook services provisioning harm “Civil & Human Rights”:
"We all know who has dumped who, who is doing what, and who doesn’t like something anymore. This is invasive, and while it is displayed for others to see, it is not meant to bombard their homepage."
In the 1960’s, students marched in the face of police armed force to stop the bombing of people; in 2006, students click a computer mouse to stop text “bombardments” of personal vanity homepages.
What is the mighty Facebook “uprising”? It is an online gossip fest about the right to gossip online, for free.
if “user production, users in charge, taking back the Net” nets an even more self-centered populace, is “users in charge” a good thing?