Is anyone else amazed that digg just won’t die? How many other popular sites have come and gone, and yet, digg is always lurking in the shadows.
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
87 points (82.7% liked)
Technology
71665 readers
3235 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
My mom still maintains her Angelfire site. MySpace still exists. There are historical cities that are ghost towns of what they once were - yet the cities exist. Once you reach a particular space of cultural ubiquity, it gets hard to disappear.
Why the fuck would I want my link aggregator to have a leaderboard?
People competing for fake internet points is already driving some of the worst patterns we're seeing on the social web. Imagine putting that shit front and center.
Because those shitty patterns make the platform valuable. It's about creating investor value, end user be damned.
Well you see there's gonna be a digg store where all your diggs can get you a virtual hat for your diggdug Ai virtual toon man guy.
this would-be Reddit competitor, built for the AI era
Oh no...
The founders think that the internet is being flooded with bots and AI agents, which will create demand for online communities like Digg that foster real human connections.
Okay, Digg has my cautious attention...
Beneath posts, Digg is leveraging AI to summarize the article’s content.
And they lost me.
All valid points, and he base truth around all this is there's no way this is the original Digg anyway. Someone bought the name rights and have Diggs' corpse strung up with a painted on smile.
The internet has way too many AI bots, let's add some more
- Digg logic
AI. BOTS. MILLENIAL INFANTILE DESIGN. CORPORATE SPEAK.
Gee, I wonder why people aren't tripping over themselves to join this.
That was a wild ride.
Because if there's anything a link aggregator needs, it's MORE reasons for people to not read linked articles! Will they also add AI responses? That way users wouldn't need to bother with reading OR writing!
Idk, its less subjective than the top comment summaries on reddit from users 
I see no reason to engage with, or trust anything created by, a bullshit generator. If Digg claims to "care" about the humans, then making the top comment into a brick wall (which has zero accountability) is a funny way of showing it.
But then again, I'm sure their privacy policy also says they care about your privacy.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Is there some reason we want brands to join the conversation?
They💸foster💸real💸human💸connections.
load more comments
(1 replies)
What's wrong with AI summaries? AI has it's uses. A long as it's just adding some metadata I don't see nothing wrong with it.
For me the big questions is what are they going to do to stop bots, spam and internet points farming. So far they didn't reveal any plans.
The thing that's mostly wrong with AI summaries is that people don't click through to the page the summary summarizes. So those sites don't get ad revenue. That's ad revenue is the backbone of the internet for a lot of sites. If there's no site posting the information then the AI has nothing to summarize and provide an overview of. The pivot to AI LLM's is likely to kill the companies who aggregate links, and they're pushing for it hoping to make it profitable in the long term because they've been actively enshittifying ad aggregation via search for the purposes of big number must go up (you know, for the shareholders). It's defeatist to the current business model of most of the internet. And the shareholders do not care so long as they get their money.
The thing that's mostly wrong with AI summaries is that people don't click through to the page the summary summarizes. So those sites don't get ad revenue.
Don’t ad blockers have a similar effect?
Not exactly. People don't click on ads when ads are blocked. But ad aggregation companies get paid in a couple of different ways. Click through is a big one, but ad impressions (eyeballs that supposedly viewed an ad) are also a thing. And impressions pay, just not as well as clickthroughs. Ad companies haven't stopped paying aggregates for ad space. That's why ads on paid services have gotten more egregious. It's not because they aren't getting paid. It's because they want both.
For what it's worth, you can (and some do) pay for subscriptions to websites or services on the internet. But nobody is paying ad aggregation companies with the intent of seeing ads regardless of the reality.
Also, ad blocking as a whole is for security as much as it is for quality of life. Ad aggregation companies have a habit of taking the money and asking questions only when they get complaints (if then) and as a result, they don't leave users who want to protect themselves another choice.
Of course, there's also the fact that one way or another the web can't just be free. Someone somewhere has to pay for the resources that make it run and the upkeep it requires.
There are summaries of articles on lemmy, just not generated by LMMs. What's the difference?
Depends. I often click on articles based on the summary because the article link is usually posted before the summary is. Sometimes the summary doesn't really explain enough for me to understand. Other times I want to know more. But when you use chatgpt to answer a query usually you don't leave that page in order to get more information and that's the problem I'm pointing out. Usually you don't even have a link to where the information in the summary came from either (my experience is limited to Google's Gemini, which I don't use, but which for a while was front and center on any query I typed in).
What's wrong with AI summaries?
It never stops there though, they never just write their summary and leave it alone they always have to have the AI do more and more until it eventually takes over the entire platform.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The hero no one wanted, or needed
But other than that. Cool
Cool how?
Oh look, another centralized social media platform that will eventually get enshittified
This one is different, it starts enshittified and enshittifies further
not quite sure it’s not starting out enshittified
If it stars out enshittified then you never had anything to enshittify, just plain shit.
yeah it doesnt look bad at all, thatll prob come later, the ai in use right now are a nonissue imo
load more comments
(2 replies)
I'm looking forward to the "Here's your first look at the rebooted Reddit" articles in 7 years.
Maybe if they allow API access for alternative frontends that eliminate ads and block telemetry. Otherwise, not interested.
So basically you want Digg to undo the things that made us all move from Digg to Reddit?
shrugs in Mbin
nods enthusiastically in Mbin
How's mbin doing, lately? I switched (back) to Lemmy when kbin shuttered and haven't kept up with it.
It's stable, Melroy is both a good dev and a good admin. The software basically fades into the background, which is ideal. There's been ongoing development, but PeerTube still isn't supported - and that's the only negative I've got.
Worthless crap. Thank fuck we're on a platform free of centralised ownership.
let me guess it's ai slop
No thanks
Don't care.
view more: next ›