digg.com - to censor or not to censor

Digg is rated within the top 150 websites by alexa. In case you didn’t know of digg here is a short blurb about what the site is about:

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. From the biggest online destinations to the most obscure blog, Digg surfaces the best stuff as voted on by our users. You won’t find editors at Digg — we’re here to provide a place where people can collectively determine the value of content and we’re changing the way people consume information online.

Now I am all for giving power to the people, but there is a limit. Digg started out as a technology news site then they opened up to more news, fine and dandy then along comes the spam. Tons of crappy stories fill the digg upcoming and front page news stories all the time. But what are the digg admins to do, start deleting the bad stories anyone remember this  . Enough deletions get done that the people start to notice then along comes the cries of censorship. and because of the mantra of digg they must stop and listen to the masses, which depending on the situation can be good or bad.

i mean honestly you go through a fiasco like the hd-dvd breakout and you rather listen to the people rather than the law, i don’t believe many of the people digg fights for the rights of will come get you out of jail. here is a imagined scenario in a digg battle gone bad.

person 1: “did you hear digg got shut down because of the posting of _____.”

person 2: “really wow that sucks”

person 3: “yea so have you seen mixx yet?”

and that would be that. digg gone and people could care less.  something needs to be interjected into this scenario or the once big time digg will become nothing more than just a memory. go ahead and flame me if you like. but everything needs some sort of structure.