The main point of the algorithm changes are to promote stories with a greater diversity of diggers. I’ve been listening to you guys rant for 20 minutes and you’ve only now come to actually address this central point. And what is the counter argument?

“If completely random people are voting for your stories they get a heads up over establish “respected” users – which is counter intuitive. The respected users should be taken as the AUTHORITY on good content.”

Then in the next breath you hear them complaining about the end of democracy on Digg. This is absolutely ridiculous. The guy in this broadcast who is saying that digg’s policy on the algorithm is not the right policy because it undermines the digg mafia is prima facie admitting that a group of ‘respected’ users have established editorial control over the site and believe that they are the arbiters of quality content… just like a normal mainstream editor believes that he/she is the determiner of good content.

This is blatant hypocrisy… but even worse, these people have only established their authority because they had a set of mates willing to vote for their submissions – as a favour for digging other submissions of the group (as one fellow openly admits in the broadcast) – when the algorithm was simpler and not savvy to these practices.

Digg has absolutely made the right choice in throwing you guys to the wall. I just hope that all this self-righteous and self affirming complaining doesn’t cause them to change their mind. You guys are not the heart and soul of digg at all.