Reginald Braithwaite has written an interesting blog-post about social news. Social news websites are news aggregators that uses the crowd. The crowd post links they like and then vote on the best links - in other words a service similar to Trejdify.
One of the problems with these news aggregators is that they consists of a crowd, and people in a crowd tend to believe in one thing and this thing becomes almost like a bubble. If someone submits a link with a different point of view, the people in the crowd will probably not vote on that link. Google has a similar problem. The most popular link on Google is the first link - but is the most popular link always the best link? Is it a waste of time to use Trejdify, Google, and Reddit?
Reginald Braithwaite thinks its not a waste of time. The bubbles existing in these news aggregators and in Google, they tend to overlap and intersect. The common view tend to change over time. The members of the crowd are becoming more exposed to new ideas and are often leading the way to a new point of view - before they who are not using the news aggregator. Common media such as regular news papers are slower since a couple of journalists can't compete with a big crowd. Reddit is the largest social news website and they have like 2 billion viewers each month - how can a regular newspaper compete?
Source: ragnwald's posterous