Sci-Hub Founder Criticizes Sudden Twitter Ban over “Counterfeit” Content

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 4:30 PM UTC

absolutelyrad wrote: post #45

wincy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When our daughter was born with a rare life threatening condition my wife used SciHub to read articles about her condition. While the doctors had merely skimmed the pages, my wife pored over them and found a suggestion of using a particular drug. After asking five different doctors about it, one finally agreed to prescribe it. It was strange how reticent doctors were to prescribe something and instead just told us sh…

I'm so happy for you! There's a company that is not public but working in this space, I cannot recall it's name. They use NLP to diagnose patient condition by ingesting raw information/text from medical books/papers. You describe how you feel and any other information that you have in an article, and it gives out possible conditions and prescription. AFAIK, they still recommended that you go to the doctor, but you co…

Post by illustriousbear » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 4:30 PM UTC

Method-X wrote: post #54

illustriousbear wrote: post #25

Hackernews comments were generally onboard with Twitter banning Trump for controversial tweets that can be considered as incitement. As much as I like Sci-Hub, it is clearly a service that disregards and breaches copyright. If you advocate for Twitter exercising a heavy hand on greyer areas (Trump), you shouldn’t be surprised when they do the same for clear breaches of their TOS/Laws (SciHub). It scares me that these…

This doesn’t negate your comment but I would like to add that I support Sci-Hub because I think charging for publicly funded content is just wrong on so many levels. Simply put, the laws need to change; and when/if they do, Twitter won’t have to do this sort of thing.

Post by Bedon292 » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 4:31 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #53

MauranKilom wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can get behind the sentiment of your post, but could you detail how the Sci-Hub twitter account has breached Twitter TOS? Contrast that with Trump who has been very clearly violating twitter TOS on a daily basis.

> Trump who has been very clearly violating twitter TOS on a daily basis How has Trump violated Twitter's TOS on a daily basis? It feels like every policy that has been put up is typically put up specifically for Trump. I don't see how people can post photos of Kathy Griffin showing a decapitated Trump head as being kosher, or CNN's Como saying violent protest is constitutionally protected, and claim Trump is violati…

Post by wincy » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 4:31 PM UTC

maximente wrote: post #40

wincy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When our daughter was born with a rare life threatening condition my wife used SciHub to read articles about her condition. While the doctors had merely skimmed the pages, my wife pored over them and found a suggestion of using a particular drug. After asking five different doctors about it, one finally agreed to prescribe it. It was strange how reticent doctors were to prescribe something and instead just told us sh…

wow, vanilla comment but this is just really inspiring. kudos to her and best wishes to y'all going forward.

Post by marcinzm » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

specialp wrote: post #69

Chris2048 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SciHub doesn't have value so much as Elsevier has "anti-value". Scihub is a space without the negative effect of Elsevier gatekeeping, thus seeming to have a net positive effect. Instead of doing anything at all with SciHub, we should instead fight Elsevier. First blow should be on the basis that Elsevier is anti-competitive, by the logic that if wasn't there would be no reason for it to succeed at all. Second blow s…

Journals do have a value, but not the value that Elsevier extracts out of them to the tune of billions of dollars a year in profits. Facilitating peer-review, being selective, indexing content, archiving and copyediting does indeed cost money. If we had a world where there were a large number of people dealing with peer-review referee selection, managing correspondence for free, and copyediting for free we could easi…