Digg Life: How Social Media Will Change the World
With a very simple concept, Digg.com has changed the fundamental nature of the news media and how millions of people access information. Digg (and its fellow social media sites) democratized the media, and wrenched control of what gets read from the gatekeepers of print and broadcast corporations and gave it to the people. Now, argue about whether this is good or bad, but it’s now a fact of life.
And someday soon this concept will spread to just about every area of our lives, from politics to entertainment to business to … you name it.
Get ready for the democratization of everything, like it or not.
What Digg Did
Before we can see how the concept of social media will spread to other areas of life, let’s take a look at what has happened, and why it’s so important.
In the days before Digg and friends, how did we access news? Through newspapers, magazines, radio and television. And who decided what news there was to access? Editors, and their bosses, publishers and corporations. To some extent — the extent that we still access new through traditional media — this still happens. A small few controls the gates of information to the masses.
But then social media came along, just within the last few years, and the gates broke open. Now, the traditional media still covers the news … but now many, many people don’t read or watch the stories through the traditional media outlets. They go to Digg, and see what’s hot. If there’s a story that sounds interesting, we click on the link and read or watch it.
And who decides what’s hot? The masses. And what’s more, it’s no longer the traditional media stories that are hot. Everyday writers, the bloggers and You Tube masters of the world, can be just as popular as the Dan Rathers and Tom Brokaws. Getting information to the masses depends on how good you are, not who you know.
How Our Lives Will Become Dugg
Corporate media is not the only area of life where a small few control the gates of information for the masses — it happens everywhere. The powerful concept of social media will break open those gates — maybe not today or tomorrow, but eventually. It’s inevitable, as once someone decides to offer a Digg-like site for other areas of life, people will undoubtedly want to be in control of their information, and would never give it back to the gatekeepers.
What areas of life will be affected? Here are just a few examples:
- Music: Controlled right now by corporate production companies and distributors, and fed to us by radio stations and music television (MTV, et. al.), music is already becoming freer through peer-to-peer networks. Though the legal battles will continue for years, because of the huge amount of money involved, it is impossible to catch and prosecute every person who downloads music. The business structure of the music industry is already changing, and will eventually change completely. But who will decide what music is popular? The masses, through a Digg-like social interface. And it will be open to all musicians, not just ones with record deals.
- Movies: Also controlled by corporate production and distribution systems, movies are already becoming socialized through sites like You Tube. Soon DVDs will become obsolete as entire movies become distributed through You Tube-like sites, and the popularity of movies becomes Digg-like. And as more filmmakers turn to self-publishing on the Internet, just as writers do on blogs, it will no longer require a production and distribution company will millions of dollars to make a successful film.
- TV shows: Same as movies.
- Politics: But our government is already democratized, right? Sure. We elect officials every two or four years, but who votes on each individual proposal? The gatekeepers. A Digg.gov site will allow the masses to decide on issues, rather than having politicians do it for us. And those who are afraid of the masses deciding on issues are not truly in favor of a democratic government.
- Marketplace: Who controls what clothes are available to us? Clothing companies and department stores. Social media can change that — imagine a digital marketplace where you can go to see what clothes are hot. What about cars? Restaurants? Gadgets? Books? As you can probably tell, these things are already starting to happen with sites like Amazon and eBay.
- Work: Who controls what work we do and how we get paid? Traditionally, the corporations and managers — the gatekeepers of decisions and money and information. But what if your work was run by a Digg-like site? Where business decisions, project decisions, pay and benefits and workplace environment decisions, were all made by the masses of the company? That’s hard to imagine in traditional companies. But consider that these days, many people are working remotely, as free-lancers or consultant or telecommuters. If work becomes less centralized, and more spread out and free (as in free-lance, not free beer), why does a central person or group of people need to control all decisions? If a group of free-lancers begins to democratize their work, this idea could have much more appeal than the traditional corporate structure … and once people have their work under their own control, they are less likely to want to go back under the control of the gatekeepers.
These changes, again, won’t happen overnight. But the winds of change are already obviously blowing in this direction, and once people get a taste of freedom, they aren’t likely to want to stay under the control of a few.
Tags: 
Loading ...
Comments
redgren says on May 9th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Umm, if by ‘we’ you mean the US, we don’t live in a democracy, we live in a republic. Basic civics. God, I hope the unwashed masses don’t get pure democracy if this is a baseline.
Leo Babauta says on May 9th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Sure, it’s a republic, but it’s also supposed to be a representative democracy. Pure democracy would presume that people have a right to make decisions that affect their lives, instead of allowing others to make those decisions for them. I happen to support the idea of more freedom, not less.
MagnoliaSouth says on May 9th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Totally disagree with your assumption on a democratic society. I say assumption because you’re assuming that you know what I believe by saying that I’m not “truly in favor of a democratic government.” Being an American, I happen to agree with the founding fathers. I do not believe that everyone should be making government decisions. Just as you would not want someone who knows nothing about medical care running a hospital, I would not want someone who knows nothing about how government works running the government, and that being the average citizen. I mean really! That’s just ridiculous. :(
Leo Babauta says on May 9th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
@MagnoliaSouth: Interesting point, but perhaps it would make more sense if the government didn’t have such a far-reaching influence in our lives. The Founding Fathers didn’t want that to happen, and yet it has. If government wasn’t so expansive, people wouldn’t have to be an expert in so many things.
Btw, do you think that the elected politicians we have running our government are experts in anything dealing with government? Just curious.
jonny says on May 9th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
As my people at El Reg would say, you’ve been breathing the heady vapours of the blogosphere too much lately. Come on–a digg for government issues? A techno-utopian Worker’s Revolution?
It’s not even worth diving into the amount of money needed to create certain kinds of movies, which would limit the Youtube crowd, when you have such glaring evidence of huffing the hype 2.0 fumes.
I’ve read almost everything you’ve ever posted, btw–you’re a great writer and I will always follow what you say, but try to temper your enthusiasm just a hair more.
Norman says on May 9th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
All we need now is citizen journalism then we can cut out the traditional news providers altogether !
Leo Babauta says on May 9th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
@jonny: How did you know about the fumes I’ve been huffing? :)
I can hear what you’re saying, but the changes I’m talking about are likely to come sometime down the road — not necessarily any time soon.
As for the cost of making movies … it’s been getting a lot cheaper. The current You Tube crowd is not who I’m talking about. I’m talking about young filmmakers who are having problems breaking into the movie industry.
Shawn Nelson says on May 9th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Dugg for the photo showing ABC removed posts from Ron Paul story.
Leo Babauta says on May 9th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
@Shawn: It was a good example of the gatekeepers in action, and how Digg contrasts them.
nbeck says on May 9th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
This is wrong. Unfortunately if social websites do start undermining the corporate world, do you not think corporations will venture into sites like this? Not many social sites will keep their dignity in place of mass riches. Look at the facebook news feed, there is corporate targetted advertising in the middle of it and it will continue to grow. This will happen on all of these sites and we’ll be left with the same problem we started with.
A plausible worry/prediciton.
theantirobot says on May 9th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
The emergence of the social web warrants a rethinking of the way our government is organized.
What if we elected the Internet to congress?
Devin says on May 9th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
“And who decides what’s hot? The masses.”
The masses do not decide, individuals and small controlling groups do. It applies to any area of life whether it’s the web, politics, business, science, etc.. The few that hold the power make the decisions, bottom line. The 2000 presidential elections verify this. Al Gore received the popular vote (masses) while George W. Bush received the electoral votes (controlling few). George W. Bush is now our President (ha).
djpyro says on May 9th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
well this whole media this media that…
why theh ell doesit matter what britney spears did… or how the guy down the street got busted for drugs…. why does anyone care?…. it all seems like a wast of time(eavin though i am reading this and replying)to sit in front of a screen and watch how people live there lives etc…
why not play a video game lmao… or make a party… all these reality shows medical shows etc. just seem boring… no point… but i gues if you think about it anything you do with yourlife hasnt really any point at all…
so i guess watch all the tv you want lmao
Habitaquo says on May 10th, 2007 at 2:46 am
I like the article, but some of the predictions at the end are too outlandish IMO. While social websites have created some very awesome alternatives to the mainstream, it is unlikely that they will become the mainstream. Maybe in a nerd utopia, but not in a world where the average person is too stupid to even question traditional media.
mjs says on May 10th, 2007 at 3:24 am
Scary that those of you who understand so little of the rationale behind our government and electoral system are the same ones advocating for for a 2.0 version of a “tyranny of the masses.” If you want to see what a direct democracy looks like in all its splendor, check out the French Revolution on Wikipedia — pay particular attention to a nice gentleman named Robespierre.
I won’t delve even more into the pluses and minuses of direct democracy. Rather, I’ll focus on how stupendously amazing it is that many of you feel like you have the understanding of the rationale behind our Constitutional Democratic Republic, when you clearly do not, and advocate for such a monumental and radical change in our government, when you really don’t have the faintest idea what would result. And, it’s not that hard to learn, either — which is why it’s all the more amazing that you feel like capriciously advocating for such change.
Why people who would never deign to think they are expert enough to advise anyone on anything that they really do not understand at just a basic level, yet feel completely uninhibited spouting off on politics when they haven’t spent an aggregate of 2 hours in their entire lives reading up on political science or the rationale of the Founding Fathers behind the Constitution…never ceases to amaze.
Erwin Korsaq says on May 10th, 2007 at 5:25 am
I use Digg just when I’m bored. I’m using it to search for serious News.
This place is filled with Kids who are just digging crazy stuff….funny pictures or a YouTube video of school shootings.
Media needs directors, just as politics do. I don’t want the masses to decide about political problems, as taxes for example.
And I don’t want the masses to direct what news are good for me.
Erwin Korsaq says on May 10th, 2007 at 5:26 am
“I’m using it to search for serious News.”
NOT!! … fuck :D
Matt G says on May 10th, 2007 at 10:30 am
mjs, the rationale behind the original U.S. government isn’t even really applicable to today’s highly corporatized world. Back then the government was the most powerful entity, but now corporations are more powerful than the government and they control it.
SaltwaterMonkey says on May 10th, 2007 at 10:39 am
It is about time that social websites start ruling the corporate world. You decide what products will be made, you decide what is news and so on.
We need to start rethinking how society is made.
Marcel says on May 10th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Diggifying everything isn’t the answer to future innocation. I know your not saying that either.
As you suggested a gentle mixture would work wonders.
Chris Anderson says on May 10th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Digg.gov already exists. It’s here: http://openingpolitics.org
vemrion says on May 10th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Let’s hope Digg changes politics and the media because right now their incestuous relationship is suffocating freedom.
http://weblog.timoregan.com/20.....o-our.html
Pallack says on May 10th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
I read stories from Digg almost every day through their RSS feed. But really - it’s just links to articles and stories that are already on the web. Someone else already wrote them, and in many cases, that someone was the mainstream media.
Even a single newspaper is a consolidator of news - they’re pulling content from many sources and trying to put together stories that will appeal to their readership. Online, you’ll find some bloggers are excellent conduits of information that’s especially useful to you.
Yes it’s cool that highly rated articles can get pushed into your visibility automatically. But it just doesn’t seem revolutionary really. Am I missing the boat or is Digg less special than this article makes it seem?
mjs says on May 11th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Matt G said on May 10th, 2007 at 10:30 am:
First off, corporations do not vote in U.S. political elections. That right is still reserved for natural persons, per the Constituion.
Second, the government was most certainly not the “most powerful entity” at its founding, though it is now. In fact, the U.S. government was founded on the precept of restricting government power to only enumerated purposes, and reserving all other rights to the “states” (ie, the people). See, those batty Founding Fathers had just escaped the tyranny of a gov’t in England where its power rested on a divine monarch, not a social contract between the people and the government representing the people.
Thrid, your invoking the claptrap of the Corporate Bogeyman: well, just… Not worth even getting into here.
Finally, none of your incoherent drivel — even if it were true — addresses my point about the danger of true direct democracy and the lack of understanding of those advocating for it.
The genius of the Founders was instituting a government in which power was separated, limited, and yet clearly defined, and where there were methods to hold it accountable. Yet, they also realized that danger of not insulating government from the whims of the masses. Sadly, their heirs apparently do not.
Franco says on December 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
@mjs - By the tone of your comment I more fully understand why the social networking phenomena is so important.
What makes you so absolutely certain you’re not a complete ignorant fool who just believes in their own version of “truth” or “reality”?
You’d be more comfortable dictating your opinions and sound like you’d be terrified at the mere mention of free people being able to express themselves.
What are you answers? What are your solutions? Why should people NOT “spout” off about politics, public policy etc…
Who brainwashed you to think you’re so much more enlightened than others? Where does arrogance like that come from?
I applaud social networking’s growth. It has been a formidable tool in the recent changes in multiple themes around the world. You just can’t “shut the mob out or shut them up” and even better… people all over the world find out faster about how incompetent so-called public policy experts really are and how selfish, corrupt and immoral the current politicians are (but they’ve always really been that way) we just were not allowed to see or “spout” since we’re just the mere masses…
LOL - go hide arrogant “know it alls” the mob is moving…