December 23, 2007
Recently, a small but loyal group of individuals have set-out to consciously disrupt the Digg.com submission algorithm by 'burying' articles based solely off of subject matter and their own personal bias's towards Presidential candidate, Ron Paul. These individuals fervently scour new Digg.com submissions and bury any positive story that appears within several minutes of the original posting.
This behavior violates a number of the Digg.com 'Terms of Service' which can be found at:
Specifically, this behavior violates sections 5.9 and 5.1.:
to abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other Digg users
Evidence of this behavior is documented on an admitted "Bury Brigade" organizer's blog and is encouraged at the blog posting titled: An Open Letter to the Digg Community & Admins.
The writer makes an attempt to portray Paul supporters as spammers. The true fact is, Ron Paul just has a ton of support. Not one user is spamming. The Ron Paul stories come from a multitude of different individuals.
The writer attempts to portray the stories as SPAM by saying the stories are entered into the incorrect areas of the Digg community.
It's pretty simple. Political posts should all be placed under the respective politician's area on Digg.
Yet, the writer brags about the stories that his little team of misfits prevented from being seen by others. Look at the URL's which he accuses of being SPAM:
List of stories we kept from raping your eyes this weekend:
It seems to me that all of these stories were submitted to the appropriate areas of Digg. This evidence shows that the 'Bury Brigade's' purpose is malicious and without merit. This group is violating the Digg 'Terms of Service' and is purposely manipulating the Digg voting process, all-the-while attempting to portray Ron Paul's huge following as a small number of spammers.
The following accounts have been setup for the sole purpose of encouraging and fostering the 'Bury Brigade's' beliefs:
 Other suspected 'Bury Brigade' members:
You can report abuses to the Digg team at:
The following is the blog posting titled: An Open Letter to the Digg Community & Admins located at: http://antipaulblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/open-letter-to-digg-community.html
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Hello there, fellow Digger. Recently, we've seen a huge amount of Ron Paul spam hitting the front page. This is not cool. Digg staff do not seem to be doing anything about this, and I suspect it's just because enough people aren't making noise. So here it is:
Our members and I (AntiPaul/Bury Brigade) exist to get rid of all of the Ron Paul spam that plagues Digg.com on a daily basis. I am not affiliated to any political party or agenda, I just do not want to see any more Ron Paul bullshit on Digg.com. And I'm sure you don't either. There is a very fine, but distinguished line between 'news' and 'spam', and the Ron Paul supporters are clearly using Digg to push an agenda.
Let me start by saying, recently our little experimental group on Digg has been pretty successful. We were able to get rid of many of the "upcoming" Ron Paul stories by spreading the word to other Digg members sick of seeing the spam. With relatively few numbers, we had a pretty good success rate which did not go unnoticed by the Paul supporters. (Thank you so much for everyone's help!)
Let me get to the point: BURYING RON PAUL SPAM IN THE UPCOMING STORIES IS EVERYONES RESPONSIBILITY IF YOU ARE TIRED OF SEEING IT. Why let these people rape Digg and your eyes? They are abusing the algorithm on Digg to raise money and spread an agenda. This is not what Digg was made for. It's for news.
WHAT CAN DIGG DO TO STOP THIS?
It's pretty simple. Political posts should all be placed under the respective politician's area on Digg. These posts should NOT be subject to public view unless the digger has indicated an interest in said politician.
It's not a failproof fix, but it's a start in the right direction to getting us on the road back to the thing everyone originally started on Digg for - TECH NEWS.
ARENT YOU ABUSING DIGG'S TOS BY DOING THIS?
No. I am not using multiple accounts to bury these stories, I am simply helping to organize other people with like interests.. very much like Ron Paul supporters. They 'shout' their stories for each other to review and Digg; We 'shout' certain stories for each other to review and decide if we like or don't like the story. Nothing in the Digg TOS says we can't be critical of a certain topic. That would be fascism.
Do I need to be in the AP/BB Network to help out?
No. Simply click on 'UPCOMING STORIES' then sort by 'Most Popular'. If you see a story that looks like Spam, BURY IT. It's that easy. All the networks do is help focus attention on particular upcoming stories.
Add us to your friends to get the shouts for Ron Paul Spam and help us out!
List of stories we kept from raping your eyes this weekend:
Bitching by the Ronbots:
"Bring on the ANTI-Paul spammers - Credit to them... they have also worked hard today for their causes... their causes... ummm - I guess they support degradation and character assassination... Anyway, here they come."
"It's the "burry brigade" at work. These "people" have nothing better to do with their time than burry Ron Paul stories all day. Funny how they have no time for sleep, work, eating, or sex...."
"You're an idiot."
Please feel free to add more to the comments, we like seeing it all.
Additional 'Bury Brigade' pages found:
Ron Paul Bury Brigade
We the constituents of the Ron Paul Bury Brigade swear to bury every Ron Paul-related article on the basis that this man is a lunatic. Digg has had enough of the constant advertisements that keep encouraging people to donate to Ron Paul.
Ron Paul will reverse federal decisions dating nearly all the way back to the founding of the United States (going back to the argument of First Bank of the United States) that have superceded the Constitution. Many diggers think this is a good thing, but he even has the potential to nullify the Civil Rights Act in his name of states' rights. And there is a good reason to believe that he will. It should be noted that he is a strong opponent of hate crime laws. In the name of "states' rights," he would willingly reverse federal laws that prevent hate crime. He has vetoed even Civil Rights legislation in his states' rights delusion. In 2004, Rep. Paul was the only member of Congress to vote against commemorating the fortieth anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He has also opposed the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. All this because of states' rights and the Constitution, which he doesn't even interpret correctly. Why doesn't he just try and seperate the fifty states into fifty seperate nations?
What this means, for those without the historical background to understand (Paul supporters), is that Ron Paul would essentially undo all federal civil rights law since Brown v. Board of Ed. All the federal court rulings, legislation, programs, rules, enforcement policies, etc. relating to the protection of civil rights. He just doesn't believe that the federal government should get involved.
Ironically, Paul's dream world could not come into being without undoing so much constitutional law as to totally upset the Constitution he's allegedly defending. Of course, there is no danger that this could occur in the real world. The rule of law, stare decisis, and the good will and common sense of the electorate would never allow President Paul (pause for laughter) to succeed in undoing our civil rights laws. But it is an important object lesson in how dangerous a little knowledge is. Paul, in protecting a fictional Constitution of his imagination, would destroy the real Constitution. That would be very dangerous indeed.
Ron Paul's libertarian policies are unrealistic and do not benefit you (the common man). Laissez-faire is accepted by a very small percentage of people, particularly the Austrian school of economics and libertarians. Laissez-faire can only worsen conditions for the working people.
And it's even scarier is that people do not know that this man does not even adhere to the Constitution. He would piss on the seperation of Church and state and ignore the first amendment of the Constitution. Don't believe me? Take a look at this.