The social site application of scripts and bots have been around as long as their have been social sites. There are scripts and bots available for MySpace, StumbleUpon, Facebook, YouTube etc. All have very different applications for very different purposes on each site.  In 2007 MySpace was involved in a publicized battle with the commercial marketers of Bot programs such as Friend-Adder and Badder-Adder These programs automated friend adding and commenting protocols bypassing the captcha safeguards.  MySpace sent cease and desist letters to these companies briefly shutting many of them down.  As the scripts circulated and were improved upon, new companies popped up as fast as the old ones shut down.  With the exception of suing spam king Scott Richter and instituting some onerous captcha and sophisticated I.P.tracking they finally gave up chasing after these bot developers.  The MySpace pursuit logic was that these bots violated state and federal anti-spam laws as they allowed people to bypass the captcha spam safeguards and send tens of thousands of comments to its membership base.  What are bots and scripts?

Bot – A software program that imitates the behavior of a human, as by querying search engines or participating in chatroom or IRC discussions. A bot is a program that performs various computer protocols automatically without human intervention. For ex GoogleBot is a application that surfs the internet and collects all the websites for Google and saves it in a database.  Email Extraction bots surf the internet and scan pages for email addresses to spam.  With regards to Digg, Promote-My-Site provides bot services that allow a person to digg without being at his or her computer.

Script – A simple program in a utility language or an application’s proprietary language. Scripts are usually very small code.  Designers tend to refer to any code in JavaScripts as script. Most webpages including Digg have some JavaScript in them which performs some action. For example the legitimate Digg button provided by Digg  uses a script.  When you click the Digg  button that action is reported back to the server.

So what about Digg?   What is the big deal with the external development of certain scripts and bots that do not impact the Digg servers and do not have any impact on the Digg algorithm?  If you listen to DiggBoss his two external scripts fit the following criteria:  They do not enable spamming or any other illegal activity. They do not allow faster digging. They do not remove or add Digg buttons. They do not bypass any protocols.  They do nothing more than enhance the Digg community user experience. Should not these types of applications be encouraged maybe even rewarded as they are often encouraged and rewarded in the Open Source community?  Why can’t Digg do likewise with API?    Digg allegedly encourages the creating of these programs through its “Application Programming Interface“(API).

The Digg Application Programming Interface (API) has been created to let users and partners interact programmatically with Digg. The API returns Digg data in a form that can be easily integrated into an application or a web site. While the API is available to everyone free of charge, its use is subject to acceptance of our API License Agreement.

The API license reads as follows:

1. GRANT OF LICENSE – Subject to your (“Licensee’s”) full compliance with all of the terms and conditions of this API Agreement (“Agreement”), Digg, Inc. (“Digg”) grants Licensee a non-exclusive, revocable, nonsublicensable, nontransferable license to download and use the Digg application program interface and other materials provided by Digg (collectively, “APIs”) to develop, reproduce and distribute non-commercial applications that interoperate with Digg.com or any other web property owned by Digg (“Digg Applications”). Licensee may not install or use the APIs for any other purpose (including without limit any commercial purpose) without Digg’s prior written consent. For the sake of clarity, the sale of advertising on a website where a Digg Application is hosted shall not alone constitute a commercial use under this Agreement, provided that the advertising is not integrated within the Digg Application itself. Licensee shall not use the APIs in connection with or to promote any products, services, or materials that constitute, promote or are used primarily for the purpose of dealing in: spyware, adware, or other malicious programs or code….

Digg’s  data is open to all under creative commons license.  Digg has a systematic way of delivering its data to anyone who is interested in having a look at it as long as they agree to the terms of access. They provide API or “Application Programmers Interface” Rather than write bots a programmer can legally view data that is made available by Digg. The data is read only in nature i.e. you can only view the data, you cannot submit back, edit or delete the data using APIs.

Former Digg power user “DiggBoss”, real name David,  used the API program to create two very useful Digg add-on applications that became extremely popular with the Digg community.  He was banned from the site when his applications became known to Digg. They had become more popular than the ones Digg had developed to enhance the user experience.

The two DiggBoss scripts made use of the API to check if your Digg friends were digging your submissions by making API queries to the digg server. The script would display the result such as 10 / 15 against the friend’s user name. The would mean the friend had dugg 10 of your last 15 submissions.   A very useful feature and a feature one would think would interest Digg. They have a much more basic feature that is extremely cumbersome and time consuming to use.  There was also a feature that allegedly reduced shout spam.   The feature was called “Shout To Friends Not Dugg”. This feature allowed a user to shout only to friends who had not previously dugg a story. There is certainly an argument that this did not reduce shout spam at all.  A person may not have dugg a story because he/she did not want to.  When that person got a re-shout it would be considered spam.  The script worked by sending a query to the Digg API server to find out friends who had already dugg and select the friends that had not this way reducing multiple shouts.

It was not possible for Digg to determine who was using the “who dugg” or  shout management feature. The script made calls to the free Google server where the application was installed and from the Google server to Digg API server.  The user computer with the script made the call to free Google server from Google server to Digg API sever and then back. The user was was never exposed to Digg server. The Digg APIs do not require any authentication i.e. passwords to operate.  If David’s script had stayed under the radar, he may never have been discovered. All Digg API data is open creative commons free for everyone.  It did not incorporate any of the “Easy-Digg” buttons or bypasses used in the scripts that allegedly resulted in his ban from Digg as well as over 100 other “power diggers”.

In March 2008 David did update the “Digg Friends Easy” script. He was then warned by Digg that such scripts were prohibited.  He was  asked to remove the script immediately. He was asked not to promote the script. He immediately removed it from the server.   What was left was the “who dugg”  application and the shout management application.  The “Digg Friend Easy” scripts themselves were not developed by David and are widely available on the web. The most popular one can be found at  http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/12708. This  script that adds “Diggit” or “Digg This” button on pages where Digg has not provided for them. This script has been on the internet as open source code since Oct 2, 2007.

In the end it appears getting rid of David was more about protecting the Digg business model and less about evil “Darth Vadar” scripts. The “Who Dugg” and shout management scripts did not even access the Digg primary servers.  In addition  Digg has recently released its own Firefox add-on touted by Kevin Rose on the Digg Blog.  The Diggboss script was a much better developed and more popular form of competition. Maybe they were in no mood for dealing with someone who had developed a better product showing up their  developers.  This seems strange since the  the license agreement gave them ownership of the Diggboss program.  The API license contains the following language:

“Digg shall own all right, title and interest relating to any and all inventions, works of authorship, designs, know-how, ideas and information made or conceived or reduced to practice, in while or in part, using the APIs. Licensee hereby agrees to make all assignments necessary to accomplish the foregoing ownership.”

Digg may have taken a lesson from the MySpace bot market and feared that David would market the program to his own benefit. Once the script was out in the open, it could be refined, improved upon and mutate into a Godzilla like creature devouring Digg profits with each digg.   The problem there is that is that the program needs their API server to function.  You would think Digg could simply shut down the API server to anyone trying to attempt the same thing?

In the end petty turf internal politics and turf wars won out over a better Digg experience.  Better to boot David for whatever reason or no reason at all. They can take his development for later use as their own when he is long forgtten.  Even if it was simply a knee-jerk reaction to the use of the clearly illegal scripts it shows once again that the Digg model is becoming less and less about user experience or community satisfication. It is all about bucks.  That is assuming Digg can ever be monetized to the extent anyone wants to give them bucks.  Google sure didnt.

WHY ARE COMMENTS CLOSED?

Comments are closed because all anybody seems to want to talk about is how I write about Digg because I am a Bitter Banned Digger or about the two”Easy-Digg” Scripts that got people banned. This blog is about  neither. It is about two Diggboss API add-ons that have nothing to do with those two scripts. It is about whether they should be allowed as user-enhancement add-ons.  If nobody wants to talk about that there is no point in opening comments.  If anyone does want to talk about that please email me and I wll post your comments.

Brian Cuban

There is no right to Free Speech on Digg or any  privately owned social site.  They are a private entities to which the First Amendment does not apply.  Double standards and no standards are allowed.

A person using Digg for the most part has no usage rights with regards to the system other than simple access. That access is at the whim of Digg.   They can kick a you off for any reason or no reason at all regardless of Terms Of Service(TOS).  The reason they go into detail on what you can and can not do is to protect their legal remedies.  The TOS ensure that when Digg sues someone for bringing down their servers, they can point to the TOS to show the person knew what he did was wrong.  The TOS are there to protect Digg’s business model and comply with state and federal law.  They are not there to provide or protect content and speech rights to the Digger.

The recent controversy over the use of scripts is a good example. Scripts allow a person to bypass certain Digg protocols. A person can  digg through articles quicker than he could could using the system as it was intended. This can involve bypassing Digg protocols or simply replicating the human process so you do not have to be at your computer.  Scripts are not allowed for one basic reason.  Scripts put a strain on the Digg servers. This slows the service down for all.  If the servers are overburdened too much  they could go down.  That hits Digg in the pocketbook.  That has a negative impact on the Digg business model. It has nothing to do with fairness and all the other community chatter.  Digg has stated this to the community.

What about all the controversy over people allegedly banned over offensive Katie Couric comments  and other alleged edgy  commentary?   Does anyone really think Kevin Rose keeps tab on Digg commentary to be sure things are taken out he does not personally agree with?   That is ridiculous.  He does keep an eye.  He keeps an eye for speech that will hurt his business model.   Kevin is not in business to shape your speech or create the warm fuzzies in the Digg Community.  He is in business to make money.  His goal is to monetize Digg to the maximum extent he can.  His goal is to monetize it to the extent that it is an attractive purchase to a potential buyer. If he his doing his job every single thing that goes on in Digg every second of every day is based on that.  Every moment of every day at Digg should be “selling time”.   Digg is selling itself to its users but most importantly to the advertisers, media partners and potential buyers. He must convince them that Digg is not just a another social site that is fun but with no real world value.

Digg’s value is not as as a news distribution conduit.  There are a ton of those.  Digg’s value is as a social phenomenon.  Phenomenons can die in the blink of an eye.  They are difficult to monetize and sell for just that reason.   There are a lot of bankrupt tech visionaries investors and start-up guys  who can attest to that.  How does Kevin Rose monetize and take the Digg phenomenon to the next level?    Hopefully by doing whatever he can to show he can generate consistent revenue through advertising, Katie Couric type events and whatever else he can come up with to show others they can make money through his model.   It is not by taking some keen interest in Digg user spats unless those spats potentially drive dollars away.   It is not an easy task and not one particular to Digg.  Social sites such as Facebook face the same challenges.

So why does Digg ban  diggers who engage some types unpopular speech.  Lets take the Katie Couric example. Not too long ago Digg hosted a “Katie Couric Diggs The Conventions” bit done through a Youtube video.  Her digg submission stated:

“Hey Digg, I’d like to take some questions from the Digg community with me to the Democratic and Republican conventions. Submit a question in the comment section below. I’ll ask the newsmakers and politicians some of your questions in my online coverage from both cities, and during a live Webcast from CBS News and CNET. Thanks! Katie.”

Several diggers who posted some controversial comments allegedly had their accounts shut down. The comments were allegedly removed.   Does anyone really think it was because of the hate speech, censorship, or political leanings of Kevin Rose?   There is hate speech all over Digg ten times worse than was posted over Katie Couric.  The comments were removed  because Katie Couric reads those comments.  Katie Couric may get upset at those comments. Katie Couric may decided not to parter with Digg again.  Katie Couric may tell others of media note of her negative experience.  They will not want to come to partner with Digg.  I suspect Digg did some heavy marketing of that event to potential advertisers and partners.  If those  advertisers go away Digg loses money.   Digg is now worth less.  Kevin Rose is pissed.  Kevin Rose decides it is not in the interest of the Digg business model to allow that type of speech when it affects his ability to generate revenue and monetize his investment.  In my opinion that is why the Digg commentators lost their accounts. Their speech potentially took money out of Kevin’s pocket.

Lets  take a another look at the controversy over scripts.  People are required to not use scripts.  Digg is not required to boot people who use scripts. They can have a double standard.  Digg can allow some people they know are using scripts to stay and boot others at their discretion.  They are not required to be fair to the Digg community.  If they are unfair to the extent that revenue goes away they would certainly look at that and make adjustments. Rose may have very well have made that decision with regards to continued script usage. In any community whenever you have a large number of people complaining of the actions of a few there is generally a response by the community leaders. I however believe that if he has decided to crack down it is because they were becoming so prevalent it was having a pronounced  affect on the infrastructure and not because of any perceived unfairness in the community. Slow and crashing servers risk his business model.  I believe there will be some type of captch based system or similar safeguard implemented to slow down digging rates.

I suspect that advertisers and others who give their money to Digg could care less about scripts and other community squabbles  unless they affect the number of people looking at the content they pay Digg to promote.  I suspect that if there were stats showing that regardless of how unfair they are, scripts actually increase usership with no infrastructure issue Digg’s response to complaints bout their use would be quite different. Digg would simply morph into a different type of user experience.

Take the server  issue out of the equation.  If  I am Kevin Rose, before I start booting power users for scripts I am going to evaluate how that affects my business model.  The Digg community may not like to hear it but but power users who create heavy discourse help monetize Digg for the better.  When my brother Mark Cuban first bought the Dallas Mavericks and was fined 250, 000 dollars by the NBA he made the comment that the publicity he got from that fine when monetized well exceeded the amount of the fine itself.  While there is an art to determining where the line is crossed, the monetary value of bad publicity can far exceed good publicity because people expect good things to happen.  They talk more when bad things happen.  I suspect Kevin Rose is aware of this theory.  I do not know how he has evaluated it but there is certainly an argument that all of these  controversies such as top diggers using scripts or whatever increase the value of his investment.   He may of course have looked at it and decided that this is the type of publicity that in the long run hurts his investment but if it does not  why would he want to stop it?   If Digg was just about the pure form of anonymously distributing news across the internet Kevin would have been able to monetize his investment and sell long ago.  He is not in business to placate the Digg masses unless that placation increases the value of his investment or failure to decreases it.

Forget politics. Forget Babyman. Forget Conspiracies. Forget Scripts.  It is all about the Benjamins.