Modes of Control and Hierarchy

The Daily Kos structure is a mixture of autocracy and democratic collectivism, with an emphasis on the latter. A brief run-down of its hierarchy:

• Markos Moulitsas, who owns the servers; has ultimate say and direct control over site.
• Contributing staff (about a dozen) plus three to four diarists chosen each year who can post on the main page and moderate conversations, promote diaries to the main page.
  
• Longtime "trusted" users with enough positive ratings who can vote to hide, or "troll-rate," comments they deem offensive or inflammatory.
  
• Regular users who can post one diary every day, comment on and recommend diaries or other users' comments.
  

An outline of Daily Kos' modes of control:

• Participation: Users can read and comment on other members' diaries, choose to recommend or hide comments. Enough recommendations gets a diary bumped up to greater exposure on the "recommended" list; enough hide ratings gets user banned.
  
• Filtering: Contributing staff can elevate diaries and assemble a section of "rescued" diaries each night that they feel have been overlooked. Automated algorithms determine when a user becomes "trusted," as well as when to ban a "troll."
  
• Pressure: Users can threaten to boycott the site or desert en masse, a la Clinton supporters who felt belittled, but this generally doesn't change much if it involves a minority group in the community. However, users did pressure the site to change its ratings policy after members got into a kerfuffle, with factions throwing troll-ratings at one another. This led to the rule that a user can only troll-rate three times a day; simplified ratings to a recommend/hide option; and gave only trusted users the latter ability.
• Community norms: This is where the whole democratic/collaborative notion comes into play. Informal norms influence what the community deems acceptable for posting (diaries are in theory supposed to take 2 hours to write, as one has only one shot a day; in the age of Twitter, this is clearly not always the case); what the collective values are and where it stands on issues (this is often debated).
• Administrative sanction: Moulitsas rarely deletes a diary and is quite forgiving, but users are banned more frequently (autoban feature). He did take the unusual step of purging the site of all 9/11 conspiracists in 2005, when they were still a vocal and active group on the site. Moulitsas said that the community is one based "in reality" and there were other places in the blogosphere for them.
  

"The Great Orange Satan" and Collective Norms: An ethnographic study of the Daily Kos diarist community

Daily Kos Research Paper

Publish at Scribd or explore others:

Presentation

I am most interested in studying how the Daily Kos diarist community is working to preserve its grassroots activism and influence over the Democratic party through informal community norms and majority control, and whether it can sustain this consensus without a powerful opposition. I found it somewhat surprising that, for a group blog, there appear to be several layers of unofficial control and filtering going on, both by other users and by a handful of editors—and ultimately Marcos Moulitsas if he decides to step in and ban a diarist, since he privately owns the site. Daily Kos’ overarching goal seems to be to provide a gathering place for partisans of similar disposition, to gain politically advantageous information, analysis, and debate.

Perhaps even more so than any administrative rules, informal community norms serve an important function in shaping the site. Regular users (self-proclaimed “Kossacks”) typically leave negative and disparaging comments on diaries with radical, offensive, or off-message viewpoints, as well as diaries that seem deliberately provocative in order to stir up controversy. Trusted users can easily “hide” controversial or off-topic messages, which raises the question of whether this is really allowing for free speech. However, the sometimes fine line between what ranks as acceptable and unacceptable can vary widely between individual members of divergent political stripes, and this can spur rating wars/ division among diarists. Although Daily Kos’ community norms claim support for all Democratic candidates, there is a palpable hostility toward those Democrats who are seen as “accommodationists,” disloyal politicians (read: Joe Lieberman), and establishment politicians who voted for the Iraq War—like Hillary Clinton, for example. Before the 2008 Election, the majority of diaries are aimed at attacking the Republican Party (George W. Bush provided a substantial mobilizing target that swelled Daily Kos’ ranks during the past decade), but Democrats are increasingly fair game for withering criticism now.

Points of view that diverge from the site’s vision are invariably rejected outright or buried.
Opinions that are seemingly legitimate in broader Democratic circles but depart from the majority or the more-powerful editors may also be stifled. After Obama’s election, Daily Kos saw a proliferation of not only trolls (suspected Republican sympathizers posing as Kos diarists), but so-called purity trolls from the far-left who are lamenting Obama’s perceived shift to the center. Consequently, Daily Kos appears to be attempting to build a platform for social action, necessitating a measure of consensus. Its system of aggregation thus promotes diaries that cohere with Zuniga and his hierarchically privileged members’ philosophy, and to a lesser extent perhaps, the will of the Kossack majority. However, this system could also backfire should members in the vein of Hillary’s proponents challenging the dominant position of the site feel marginalized. This could ultimately fracture the Daily Kos community and undermine its ability to mobilize and rally behind a united movement.

Daily Kos has a clear inclination toward openness (it is relatively painless to become a member and comment on other’s blogs, or start one’s own diary for that matter), but it also makes the community vulnerable to outsiders who do not share the vision of the site: either because they have different opinions or have ulterior motives, requiring these modes of control and layers of filtering. The informal rules of its community structure relationships between majority and minority and internal control. The damage infiltrators can do by disrupting accepted discourse outweighs the benefits of differing opinions and debate. The site does allow for disagreement, but it has a bias towards viewpoints that reinforce rather than challenge its ideology.

The Death of Netroots?

During the Bush era, Daily Kos members were focused on defeating Republicans. But now that Obama is in office and the Democrats have a lock on Congress, that solidarity is being threatened. One of the site’s new goals is to concentrate on pressuring so-called conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats to support Obama’s agenda. Before the 2008 Election, the majority of diaries are aimed at attacking the Republican Party (George W. Bush provided a substantial mobilizing target that swelled Daily Kos’ ranks during the past decade), but Democrats are increasingly fair game for withering criticism now.

As Moulitsas told Mother Jones in a story posted Monday, “It's getting harder to run a community like [Daily Kos] than it used to be when Bush was president. Because then, we were all on the same page: ‘Bush sucks.’ I don't think anyone disagreed with that. But, now we have power, and you have to walk that line between constructive criticism and destructive criticism.”
‘There are people who say, "You're not being tough enough on Obama, he's going the corporatist route,’ and then you have people who say, ‘Now you're just giving Republicans talking points,’ so you have a divided community. Makes things a little livelier sometimes.”
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2009/05/meet-markos-kos-moulitsas

The question remains what Daily Kos’ mission will be going forward, and how it will retain a sense of unity behind the Democratic party without the motivating force of Obama’s candidacy. Some have argued that netroots itself will slowly fizzle out without a clearly defined opposition. I would suggest that with splintering support, no clear or tangible objective and a precipitous dip in site traffic post-election, Daily Kos will need to reconfigure its community dynamics, and will likely use different modes of control as well as its built-in hierarchy as it struggles to mobilize its netroots . Ironically, this may actually open up a more robust debate that is manifesting itself in diaries with some members lamenting Obama’s perceived shift to the center and others defending him just as vigorously.

In many ways, Daily Kos can be polarizing, an “ideological cocoon”: only people who agree with the collective tend to be promoted to main page or recommended by other users. But that is part of the purpose of the site; it does not attempt to conceal its ideological bent, and this larger agenda for organizing the Democratic party for electoral success is part of the justification for control. Thus, I would suggest the modes of control Daily Kos employs to keep diarists on-message are both to maintain unity of party and message; and to weed out trolls or “radicals” who would fragment and reflect negatively on the liberal cause.

At the same time, some would argue this same silencing of the minority is actually further fragmenting the party, drawing lines between “True-Blue Liberals” and their moderate counterparts. These demarcations were evident in the spate that erupted over Clinton during the 2008 primaries, when her supporters threatened to “go on strike” and migrate to other sites.
The actual tolerance for dissenting viewpoints on Daily Kos is much less diverse than the site’s Dyksopedia suggests. However, this control serves a purpose in sticking to a liberal ideology and a cohesive message. Daily Kos is an unabashedly partisan blog with a clear agenda: supporting and influencing the Democratic party. As such, it is concerned less with presenting a diversity of opinions than with sparking debate and activism among the liberal community.

A Brief Overview of Daily Kos

Daily Kos, a so-called “diarist” blog, has held a dominant position in the blogosphere since its inception seven years ago. The site started with netroots activists whose mission was based on supporting and influencing the Democratic Party. Kos is often cited in the mainstream media (a favorite of Fox News), has broken some important stories, but also has taken flak for some explosive and ultimately baseless claims from unvetted diarists such as the “Babygate” accusation that Sarah Palin had lied about her 4-month-old baby. As a liberal bastion promising “political analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation,” it acts as a foil to conservative attack blogs like RedState. (http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2008/10/how-political-diarists-power-redstate-daily-kos295.html)

Markos “Kos” Moulitsas Zuniga founded Daily Kos in May 2002, during “those dark days when an oppressive and war-crazed administration suppressed all dissent as unpatriotic and treasonous.” A veteran, Moulitsas explained that he “was offended that the freedoms he pledged his life for were so carelessly being tossed aside by the reckless and destructive Republican administration.” Today the site boasts traffic of two to four million visitors every day, more than 100,000 registered users, and over 20 million daily page views. (http://www.dailykos.com/special/about2)

Daily Kos has fairly recently partnered with Research 2000 to conduct periodic independent polling that is given prominent placing. Also on the main page is paid advertising, often from political advocacy groups. Though Daily Kos frames itself as a grassroots community, it relies on click-through ad revenue.(http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10398)

That Daily Kos remains influential within the Democratic party blog is indisputable: politicians like Barack Obama and former President Jimmy Carter have posted diary entries on the site, and its members hold an annual Netroots Nation convention (formerly YearlyKos) that attracts prominent Democrats. DailyKos was an early mobilizing force behind President Obama’s 2008 campaign, and some alleged overenthusiastic in sniping at Hillary Clinton.

Henry Farrell, "Bloggers and Parties: Can the Netroots Reshape American Democracy?" Boston Review (September/October 2006).

Virtual Tour

The very layout and structure of the Daily Kos diarist community suggests the inherent hierarchy built into the site. The front page features diaries posted sporadically by kos (Zuniga), and more regularly his paid staff, as well entries these editors have promoted to the homepage.

A select group of powerful users are frequently elevated to the “Recommended Diaries” sidebar along the right border which have received a high number of positive ratings. There are about 20 to 30 diarists who consistently make the recommended diary list, having built a reputation and a following of other members on the site.


Each new diary is briefly and unobtrusively displayed on a sidebar under the heading “Recent Diaries” in the bottom corner.


The secondary "Diaries" page displays a more egalitarian selection of entries. The setup is identical to the front page, but here rank-and-file members have a greater chance of seeing their posts make the coveted left column. In the entries themselves, diarists can post straw polls, video clips, and hyperlinks. Below the post, responses are listed in chronological order with a (+/-) rating next to each comment. Members can vote to either recommend or, if they are "trusted" users who have built up cache on the site with positively reviewed comments and diaries, they can vote to hide a comment. Users can also tag diaries as "troll" or "bannable offense" to alert moderators to consider sanctioning the author.


Users can’t edit each other’s postings, though they can add updates and corrections. Instead, Daily Kos gives diarists a bullhorn and a soapbox to write blog entries once a day, and participation in commenting on others’ diaries and feedback. These informal norms are intended to discourage behavior deemed divisive or spiteful. The debate and political activism it engenders are the product of Daily Kos.


Analysis

Daily Kos’ system of aggregation promotes diaries that cohere with Zuniga and his hierarchically privileged members’ philosophy, and to a lesser extent perhaps, the will of the Kossack majority. Points of view that diverge from the site’s vision are invariably rejected outright or buried. Opinions that are seemingly legitimate in broader Democratic circles but depart from the majority or the more-powerful editors may even be stifled. Through consensus, Daily Kos appears to be attempting to build a platform for social action, necessitating a measure of consensus. However, this system could also backfire should members in the vein of Hillary’s proponents challenging the dominant position of the site feel marginalized or silenced. This could ultimately fragment the Daily Kos community and undermine its ability to mobilize and rally behind a united movement.

Daily Kos Standards

Though Daily Kos appears to be a straightforward "collective" on the surface, there is in reality a quite complex system for maintaining community norms in place.
Some of the interesting rules that I gleaned from the dKosopedia (Daily Kos wiki/encyclopedia) FAQ, which lays out the framework for diary writing:

12. Diarists are strongly encouraged to back up all assertions with facts (and preferably links to supporting materials) whenever possible. Use reputable sources whenever possible. If you can't find a reputable source that supports your position, then perhaps reconsider writing your diary.

14. Diaries which engage in wild speculation without any proof are strongly discouraged. Repeatedly posting diaries consisting largely or entirely of wild speculation is an abuse of site policy. Bear in mind that that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

16. Diaries which are deliberately designed to inflame are prohibited.

There is also a lengthy section devoted to conspiracy theories and a specific set of rules governing 9/11 consipacists (one of the infiltrator groups I am looking at) who are still posting on the site. Zuniga (Kos) himself even singled out this group in justifying the automatic banning of members trying to advance such conspiracies in their diary entries. It just goes to show that Zuniga is the private proprieter of the site and has final say on what ends up on Daily Kos.


Controversial Diary Topics

Diaries on certain topics are likely to generate angry responses. Most of these topics fall under the general heading of "conspiracy theories", e.g., "JFK was killed by Martians". The rule for posting such diaries is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of proof that commenters will demand. If you can't provide evidence to back up your claim, it is best not to post the diary. This guideline also applies to recommending extraordinary-claims diaries. If a diary makes an extreme claim with little or no evidence to back up that claim, it shouldn't be recommended, no matter what that claim is.

Addendum

Some people have been confused by the above discussion. Let me make it perfectly plain. Diaries advancing 'Conspiracy Theories' are subject to ridicule and derision from the community at the very least. Repeat offenders can and will be banned. Yes, this does include 'controlled demolition' of WTC 7.
Here is what kos has to say-

The conspiracists by kos
Fri Jul 08, 2005

Today I did something I've never done before (not even during the Fraudster mess), and wish I'd never had to do.

I made a mass banning of people perpetuating a series of bizarre, off-the-wall, unsupported and frankly embarassing conspiracy theories.

I have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories. You know the ones -- Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can't imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain't the Reality Based Community.

So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake -- this is a purge.

This is a reality-based community. Those who wish to live outside it should find a new home. This isn't it.

Update: I've been reinstating some of the banned accounts as they email me. Some people wondered why there wasn't any warning. There have been warnings from others -- repeated pleadings for people to ground themselves in reality.

It's telling that I have NEVER done something like this before. Because this has been an extreme situation. This isn't about disagreeing with what people are saying. If that was the case, everyone would've been banned by now. The myth of the "echo chamber" is just that. A myth.

But as for warnings, well, this has been my warning. I wanted it clear that I was serious, and I think that has come through. I am reinstating those who ask to be reinstated. But the message has been sent.


Controversial 9/11 Diaries

DailyKos accepts that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by agents of Al-Qaeda. It is forbidden to write diaries that:

1. refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any government assisted in the attacks
2. refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their subsequent collapse.

Authoring or recommending these diaries may result in banning from Daily Kos.


An intriguing discussion of first amendment priveleges follows further down the page from the irascible kos. Zuniga makes clear that there are no freedoms guaranteed on Daily Kos, and I think members accept this as a trade-off of creating solidarity and an activist platform. However, it does beg the question of whether it is really a free marketplace of ideas when the minority is quashed or vilified. Can there be free speech when off-message posts are buried or tagged as “trolls”?


But, what about Freedom of Speech?

Doesn't the First Amendment give me the right to talk about whatever I want here?

No. Daily Kos is owned by kos. The servers are his. He pays the bandwidth charges. He makes the rules; we are here as his guests. If he decides tomorrow that anyone not posting in iambic pentameter will be banned, your options are either to brush up on your poetry skills or find/start another forum.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/DailyKos_FAQ#Writing_diaries

So basically its Kos' way or the highway.