Here is an interesting dilemma. There is a service called Digg that allows people to vote on blog entries or other articles they find interesting. Digg compiles the votes and then ranks the various stories based on the number of votes. The service is quote simple and works well, but here is the dilemma.
Someone Dugg an article that contains information about a key to unlike High Definition DVDs. This created a substantial amount of interest on the Internet and many people starting Digging the article. It was so popular that it was the number one story. Digg then decided that the story was inappropriate and so they removed the story, the associated comments and actually shut down the guys Digg account.
This is the dilemam. Should Digg have done that? Remember, they are not actually hosting stories, but rather posting links and votes to stories. To me, this strikes me of censorship. The whole Digg idea is that it is a social thing where people vote. I believe that if people want to rank the story about HD-DVD keys highly, they should be able to do that. I do not think that it is Digg’s place to say what stories should or should not be rated, and that should be left to the community. I imagine the issue is that they are scared of getting sued, but at what cost? Freedom of speech?
Here is a link to a post by the guy who originally was banned. It tells his side of the story.