Paul Graham brought up the issue of media companies censoring or not covering content that (positively) relate to each other.
Twice now, stories that linked to reddit have gone out in Digg's rss feed as frontpage stories, only to disappear from the frontpage.
Digg's whole point is supposed to be that users decide what's interesting. Does that merely mean, in practice, that users get to vote among choices that Digg approves?
We witnessed a similarly biased coverage in Turkey recently. My friend Orhan Gorbon competed in the Vakko Cannes Istanbul off-shore sailing race, on a boat sponsored by Sabah, a leading Turkish newspaper. I don't read Sabah regularly, and the dailies I read, owned by the competitor Dogan Media Group, while covering the race (because one of their papers, Milliyet, also sponsored a boat), did not mention a word of Orhan's boat. Just like Digg, Milliyet was doing a disservice to its readers, who, arguably, are as interested in the Sabah boat as they are in the Milliyet boat. By the way, Sabah did exactly the same.
I can accept this reporting bias in newspapers - after all, we choose our newspapers partly for their editorial biases. However, I find it unacceptable in the case of Digg and reddit, since their whole point is a "Wisdom of Crowds-like" filtering of content.
NB. In the photo above, this blog proves its unbiased approach :)