Today Jay Adelson from Digg wrote on [removing the HD-DVD story from Digg](http://blog.digg.com/?p=73). As a business owner I understand why Digg removed that story, but within that blog post Jay said:
Our goal is always to maintain a purely democratic system for the submission and sharing of information – and we want Digg to continue to be a great resource for finding the best content.
If Digg truly wanted to be democratic they would do what Netscape does by showing who buries or down votes stories because this would cause less people to bury a story for no reason. There have been multiple users who requested this feature and complained to Digg about it, but they didn’t respond to our requests.
Another great way for them to show how democratic they are is that they remove stories that talk negatively about Digg. Stories from Pronet Advertising and other blogs that talk about Digg in a negative fashion have been buried when [Digg Spy](http://digg.com/spy) showed that 0 people buried the story. Granted there may be more buries than they are showing, but you would think at least 1 would show up in Digg Spy.
There have been many more cases of Digg being very democratic, such as sites like [Online Marketing Blog](http://www.toprankblog.com/) getting banned because too many users marked the site as spam and complained to Digg about the site. Lee Odden, the writer of that blog never spammed Digg and never submitted his own stories, but for some reason they felt his blog should be banned. Online Marketing Blog as well as others are now unbanned, but for many months they were banned.
There are many other reasons why I feel Digg is no where near as democratic as it could be… anyone else feel the same way?