Of course they do...people "sign" on to these terms...the better question is, what are they willing to do to enforce it?
Noodles
· 1 year ago
Probably not much. Things like this have been happening for ages and other sites like usersubmitter and subvert & profit haven't been shut down...it's probably not worth Digg's trouble. Anyway, I think these services are rad...STICK IT TO THE BIG GUYS!
Allison
· 1 year ago
Lots of sites use C&Ds in an attempt to stop sites that harm or misuse their sites. The cost of going beyond a C&D would probably be greater than the reward of having these guys shut down through legal means.
Adam Ostrow
· 1 year ago
yea, essentially all they'll do is keep banning users most likely, but C&D can scare some people off
alexander-social media guy
· 1 year ago
C&D is a scare tactic but I wonder what real recourse they can do if uSocial gives em the finger and continues with business as usual. As Allison said the exorbitant legal costs would probably preclude any real action.
So now the real question...how will Digg find out which users are uSocial drones?
Ntino
· 1 year ago
yeah, but if that's a company in China how are they gonna shut them down ?
n4th4n
· 1 year ago
the company is run by a very smug looking individual in brisbane, where i live. stories which deserve to be dug should get them, not someone with the most money to buy popularity!!!!!!
Anrkist
· 1 year ago
I like how the site is a smorgasbord of Web 2.0 cliches.
Glass Buttons? Check. Gradients? Check. Starburst Sticker? Check. Lack of Serifs? Check. In Your Face Font? Check.
That's based on the screenshot alone. If I wasn't so lazy, I would visit the site and find more.
Noodles
· 1 year ago
The thing is though, the title of this post is a little deceptive. Digg haven't actually banned them, just given them a cease and desist order to stop. I've been reading a little more about usocial.net around the Internet and as far as I can tell, they're still doing business.
I say good luck to them. If they can pull it off, why not?
Barry Hurd
· 1 year ago
I have to say that this Digg lawyer needs to study his law books again. Tortious interference is just a big word that has little to do here. If you read the description in the RCW (or even Wikipedia unfortunately) then you can see that rather than have 1 point to prove, there are five points that must be proven.
In this case, Digg has questionable complaint on all five points. Ouch. That means the other side has a 5 to 1 defense ration. Ouch, ouch, ouch.
Alvaris Falcon
· 1 year ago
a brave website and a good challenge for Digg to solve these problems.
Anderson
· 1 year ago
That C&D is worthless. Digg basically said that has a problem with its users, that the users are breaking the ToS. The site is legitimate. The users aren't.
Jon Kepler
· 1 year ago
Digg knows that they can't ever entirely stop this. However, it's probably of benefit to them to attempt to show the public that they're "serious" about maintaining the integrity of their voting system.
Dave
· 1 year ago
Doesn't seem to me to be hugely different from Max Clifford-style PR - if you got the money to get on the front page, if you got enough dazzle-razzle to blind viewers to your lack of substance, you just might make it...
Abhijith Babu
· 1 year ago
This is good
nigger
· 1 year ago
niggers
they cant touch those mother fuckers... that company didnt agree to digg's terms... digg's users did
digg's fight is with the users who are buying into this
more power to companies who fight bullshit like digg
digg - d + black = nigger!
Justin
· 1 year ago
Just checked out the site, on an average they charge $1 per digg. They wont stop a profitable venture. Best they would do is dumping the domain.
Jon Kepler
· 1 year ago
Wow! People actually pay that? I had no idea prices were that high; sounds like a pretty lucrative business.
Dan
· 1 year ago
Digg knows that they can’t ever entirely stop this....
rodel
· 1 year ago
mmmmm.. a very lucrative business model.. hehhee worth the clone! lol!
How many companies are selling diggs without stupidly broadcasting it?
Shaun
· 1 year ago
IANAL but to have a reasonable chas at making a case Digg only need to... A.) prove that employees of the usocial signed their terms of service and are violating those terms at the direction of usocial. B.) claim the Digg users being paid by the company are de facto employees.
I bet even further than some of those vote are using automated false accounts, which most likely also violate the terms.
Recent (and IMHO unfortunate) case law in the USA has shown that terms of service violation can possibly be prosecuted very aggressively.
If usocial is not located in the USA, Digg could have a considerably more hard time with this.
facebook junkie
· 1 year ago
They sure took their time doing this, It's a clear violation of TOS...
Jose Mendonca
· 1 year ago
I wonder what they can do... they can ban the users, but the company did not had to accept the TOS of digg, so, unless the accounts are theirs, again, what can Digg do?
Besides, digg is already influenced by the big fish.
Rob Scott
· 1 year ago
Importantly, though, do you guys actually moderate comments - there's some, erm, off topic stuff above (definition: total spam).
ntopics
· 1 year ago
You hear how Digg votes are controlled in many ways. This is going to be interesting to see how Digg works with the influence of this new company controlling votes.
thanks from tony
dan
· 1 year ago
stupid digg... they can’t ever entirely stop this…
Digg Marketing has sure been gaining popularity as of late. There seems to be 3 main competitors but MagicShovels is still the only one that guarantees your story to make the front page. The other guys are just selling a quantity of Diggs.
All Comments
Anyway, I think these services are rad...STICK IT TO THE BIG GUYS!
So now the real question...how will Digg find out which users are uSocial drones?
Glass Buttons? Check. Gradients? Check. Starburst Sticker? Check. Lack of Serifs? Check. In Your Face Font? Check.
That's based on the screenshot alone. If I wasn't so lazy, I would visit the site and find more.
I say good luck to them. If they can pull it off, why not?
In this case, Digg has questionable complaint on all five points. Ouch. That means the other side has a 5 to 1 defense ration. Ouch, ouch, ouch.
they cant touch those mother fuckers... that company didnt agree to digg's terms... digg's users did
digg's fight is with the users who are buying into this
more power to companies who fight bullshit like digg
digg - d + black = nigger!
www.anonweb.net.tc
A.) prove that employees of the usocial signed their terms of service and are violating those terms at the direction of usocial.
B.) claim the Digg users being paid by the company are de facto employees.
I bet even further than some of those vote are using automated false accounts, which most likely also violate the terms.
Recent (and IMHO unfortunate) case law in the USA has shown that terms of service violation can possibly be prosecuted very aggressively.
If usocial is not located in the USA, Digg could have a considerably more hard time with this.
Besides, digg is already influenced by the big fish.
This is going to be interesting to see how Digg
works with the influence of this new company
controlling votes.
thanks from tony