Liberals are whining because they're used to stomping on certain articles with the help of their Political Action Commmit... er, I mean the media outlets. Liberalism is a mental disease...

someone wrote
" Liberals did this first
Any "Pro-Bush" news article that was posted, as of a few years ago, was immediately downgraded by a huge number of people. "

because maybe the only people able to see anything positive in the things bush did were right-wingers?
there was no organization behind those buries. none was needed. they happened naturally because half the American population hated his guts and all of the rest of the world.

if you need external organisation to get your stories on the front page then they probably shouldn't be there.

America has many such groups (mostly christian or right wing or corporate-hired), and they don't just mess with digg, they are active everywhere, on youtube too, and on theinq, just write an article about the piracy and several RIAA/MPAA sockpuppets will start to auto-post comments.

As for digg.. isn't digg a bit a thing of the past now?

Ridiculous. First Digg is not a news source for most people, there the importance of these alleged actions sighted in this article are of dubious significance. Digg probably is frequented bu left wingers mainly and it is obvious this author is of left wing ilk. I read The Inquirer to get some inside tech news not to read crap like this article, and I will quit frequenting this sight if articles like this continue to appear.

Digg is entirely open to this kind of shenanigans from day one. It was designed purposefully for being open to abuse. May not have been thought of in that way, but if I open my front door to the public and hang up a sign saying "Public Wecome, Free Entrance", well I'll only have myself to blame in the evening when I find mudprints all over the floor, piss in a corner and my entire DVD collection gone.
Because "the public" is like that - they don't respect you or anything you own.
It's only when you carefully vet the people you let in, in controlled circumstances, that you can be at rest with the knowledge that they will wipe their shoes coming in, they will use the toilet properly and they won't swipe your cutlery when you're not looking.
Every single Web 2.0 story I have heard of always ends up the same way, with some pressure group or another abusing the "moral rules" of the system and taking over the site.
There can be no exception. Web 2.0 sucks.

I stopped using Digg a long time ago because it had been taken over by left-wing pressure groups. It started as mostly tech news, but when it tried to expand, left-wing nutballs from the Huffington post and other left wing blogs took over. Every single comment that does not get modded down into oblivion would be considered a troll on Slashdot.

Will pressure from extremists on the other side balance it out or make it even more extreme?

We all know it is all Bushes fault. Whatever it is or was this article is really about, it must be Bushes fault.
Goo thing this was on line or olse it would not have been worth the paper ot would have been printed on. But, that would have been Bushes fault also.

One more thing. As stated by the illustrious "David Neal":

"Although the majority of stories buried by this cabal of hard right wingnuts are political or critical of the Fox news network, the censorship goes further."

It's funny, but how often does anyone hear of "hard left wingnuts"? It would seem 0bama voters, PETA, ACORN, the "Rainbow Collation", NOW and other such groups must merely be made up of moderate to right-leaning persons, huh?

Not at all, but don't think you'll hear such derogatory words thrown at them for their antics by a noble publication like "The Inq".

What would you expect from a site that loses all of its respected authors en masse? You are then only left with the dredges of scripting society to fill their shoes.

Enjoy, libs.

Any "Pro-Bush" news article that was posted, as of a few years ago, was immediately downgraded by a huge number of people. I doubt those were "conservatives" doing that.

Turn about is fair play. I encourage liberals to continue to do likewise, so that Digg is made effectively worthless to all, once more!

Burying news promotes free speech. Liberals own the media; we don't get a chance to be heard. Foreign invasions to seize empire are to promote democracy. Restricting rights keeps us free. Edited videos "get the truth out". Tax cuts help the poor. Fox News is "fair and balanced".

Mix that up with jingoistic militarism and yearnings for religion in gov't; it's the classic formula for fascism.

Perhaps they just dislike British bend stories or even, Queen forbid, British in general.

This article is a fart in a hurricane.

to allow another story that you like to pop to the front page. Maybe.

I don't know how all this works, but my next thought is that if you subscribe and you click that you "Like" some stories which other people "Hate", then their other "Hates" should count as stories that you may small-L like, too. I haven't calculated what that will do, though. What's the next sophisticated attack if my suggestion is adopted? Maybe to "Like" stories about Democrats, but mainly ones that embarrass them? Or, "Like" Democrat stories and also like sex crime and murder stories, so that genuine Democrat fans are served up a bunch of news stories that are depressing and drive you to suicide, or anyway to staying in bed all day and not going out, for instance on polling day.

L'Inq makes me cross-eyed mad and I can't see straight.

You udoubtedly thought that the massive pro-left voter fraud perpetrated by ACORN was no big deal.

Is it just me or do the articles get funnier and weirder as Friday approaches?!