Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT Media Lab Disobedience Award

media.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 170 posts

Re: MIT Media Lab Disobedience Award

#62

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bobsam wrote: post #15
sokoloff wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To take another comment, suppose the Media Lab awards Snowden the $250K. What possible conspiracy charge could the Media Lab (or the person(s) who nominated Snowden) catch?

Has Snowden been charged with anything? If not, can it still be considered helping a fugitive?

Are you volunteering to have that debate with the DoJ?

Re: MIT Media Lab Disobedience Award

#65

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

oopsietazer wrote: post #59
tricolon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first eligibility requirement: The recipient must be living.

The first word in the award: Disobedience.

That's just stupid.

The award is clearly for people who are being disobedient for the benefit of society.

Breaking rules for the sake of breaking rules is just anarchy or trolling. You're just inconveniencing people who set out to recognise real contributions to society.

Unless there is an Aaron Schwartz foundation or something, nominate people who are still doing work.

Re: MIT Media Lab Disobedience Award

#66

Post by glomek »

ptero wrote: post #60
glomek wrote: post #54

It doesn't matter if Aaron Swartz is ineligible. We should still nominate him. We should nominate him so many times that granting the award to anyone else makes this award an obviously disingenuous publicity stunt.

I'd vote for Swartz or Snowden any day. But IMO voting for Swartz would serve mostly to shame MIT. Voting for someone else might make a difference to a live person.

MIT needs to be shamed publicly, regularly and continuously until they publicly apologize for their shameful behavior.

Giving this award to Swartz, and giving the money to his parents, along with a public statement of remorse and a public commitment to behaving more honorably in the future, would be an excellent way for them to do this.

Re: MIT Media Lab Disobedience Award

#67

Post by laser »

ptero wrote: post #60
glomek wrote: post #54

It doesn't matter if Aaron Swartz is ineligible. We should still nominate him. We should nominate him so many times that granting the award to anyone else makes this award an obviously disingenuous publicity stunt.

I'd vote for Swartz or Snowden any day. But IMO voting for Swartz would serve mostly to shame MIT. Voting for someone else might make a difference to a live person.

And beyond that– to potentially many live people that the recipient is able to positively impact.

Re: MIT Media Lab Disobedience Award

#69

Post by williamle8300 »

oopsietazer wrote: post #58
joelg wrote: post #55

How are so many people bringing up Aaron Swartz? Media Lab !== MIT and this is probably entirely Joi's idea. And the MIT administration has changed significantly since 2013.

If that were indeed the case then this shouldn't have been called an MIT award.

Yuup.

Re: MIT Media Lab Disobedience Award

#70

Post by COMPUTERLOSER »

glomek wrote: post #66
ptero wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd vote for Swartz or Snowden any day. But IMO voting for Swartz would serve mostly to shame MIT. Voting for someone else might make a difference to a live person.

MIT needs to be shamed publicly, regularly and continuously until they publicly apologize for their shameful behavior. Giving this award to Swartz, and giving the money to his parents, along with a public statement of remorse and a public commitment to behaving more honorably in the future, would be an excellent way for them to do this.

MIT is only okay with "disruption" and "disobedience" in the late stage capitalism meanings of those words.

They merely put up with the 70s hacker culture until it interfered with their ability to function as an obedient conduit for defense industry contracts.

Post reply on HN