Social media depends on the essential goodness of people and their willingness to selflessly contribute to a community instead of just taking all they can get without recompense. But people are flawed, selfish and venal, so how does social media actually work?

We spend a lot of time trumpeting the game-changing coolness of social media here at Social Studies, but things are not always what they’re cracked up to be.

Take Digg, for example. From a distance it is, like Wikipedia, a shining example of how the power and wisdom of crowds can create something useful for everybody. Digg is how people can share links (to news stories, funny pictures, cool videos, etc.) with not just a few friends but with the world.

Only a few of the thousands of submitted links make it to the Front Page because there’s a certain threshold of diggs needed to make it that far (users who like a story “digg it”, which acts as a vote in favor of it). Once a story makes it to the Front Page it is assured of thousands, perhaps even a hundred thousand clicks. It’s a marketer’s dream. For the price of a good story you can get thousands of people to visit your website and maybe click on your ads and explore your site (and leave your web-server crying for mercy since all the hits come at once).

Digg wisely made submitting a game — the users with the most stories on the front page grace the top of the charts. The most prolific submitters have established something of an oligarchy on Digg. Their stories have an instant following since everybody wants to be buddy-buddy with the upper class.

Unfortunately, some top Digg users have gone “professional” — they are selling their influence to anyone who can meet their price; regardless of the quality of the story. InvespBlog scored an interview with a top digger who sells his status for cash under the table.

There are couple different ways I offer my services. If someone wants me to submit an article without any promotions involved, I charge anywhere between $300 – $500 depending on the quality of article. My submissions grow pretty fast so most people do not opt for promotion. For a submission and promotion I charge $700 irrespective of whether the article is good or not. As you know a front page can never be guaranteed.

These prices are irrespective of whether or not the article makes it to the front page. If the article does make it to the front page there is an additional charge of $500.

Why do people pay for such a service? Well as I said, the amount of people who click on the links on the front page is amazing: “Digg can easily bring traffic anywhere from 20,000 to 100,000 plus to one single article.” The cost-per-click is incredibly low (somewhere around 1 to 6 cents per click); it’s simply too cheap for marketers to resist and obviously it’s easy money for the upper echelon of Digg users. Once you get into the upper crust it’s simple to manipulate those beneath you:

Whether its the the real world or the virtual world, the best way to be known is by being seen by movers and shakers. Most top users reciprocate diggs and keep an eye out for each others [sic] submissions. This makes it easier as they never have to send a shout or ask for diggs at any given time. Most new users tend to follow top diggers right away hoping they will follow them as well but most times it is a loyal following that follows each submissions [sic] from a power users [sic]. Its a give and take game that we have become very good at.

Should we be worried that Digg’s experiment in digital democracy so quickly devolved into a corrupt oligarchy? It certainly doesn’t reflect well on America’s democratic experiment, especially when it seems like the Paris Hiltons of the world have such an easy time achieving their dreams while the rest of us toil away in relative obscurity no matter how phenomenal our work may be.

Does our mysterious top digger feel remorse for his actions?

I would feel guilty if I was the only one but find me one Digg user from the entire community who doesn’t cheat the system, who doesn’t ask for votes and then I will spill my guilt. But at this time I have no guilt whatsoever. I do what everybody else does. It is obvious that good content does not make it by itself on Digg.

Fittingly, the only way InvespBlog could score an interview with this guy was by paying him for it. It’s hard not to get cynical about the future of social media when you see people so willing to shamelessly sacrifice their integrity for a quick buck.

For the record, we here at Social Studies do not condone spamming, astroturfing or selling your votes. Social media should benefit all of us, not just the elite few who have the time to schmooze their way to the top.

I’m afraid Digg is just a reflection of America and a glimpse into the darkness of the human heart. Next thing you know we’ll hear that politicians are corrupt!