91–100 of 280 posts
Why do we even allow twitter this power. Stop using twitter.
In the end this could work out well. People go where the stuff that they want is. I occasionally dust off an old twitter account when I want to reach an org which is otherwise hiding any means of human contact. So if scihub does manage to make a meaningful presence somewhere like mastodon that's all for the good - and just hastens the decline of twitter.
Rights holders have been trying to get rid of sites like the pirate bay for more than a decade, and if anything PB is easier to find and more reliable to use than ever before. If they really want change, it's time for them to dispassionately consider their situation. The way to "beat" piracy is to consider it as a competitor, which it is. When I was a kid, everyone downloaded raw mp3s and now that number is a fractio…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter has said on a number of occasions [1] that Trump has violated their ToS, but allowed him to stay because it was important for the public to see. That's not a grey area. In the case of Sci-Hub what part of the ToS do they violate? The message cites counterfeiting, which doesn't seem to apply (unless that's a translation issue?). And if Piracy is a violation of their terms then why are there plenty of piracy to…
Those are certainly fair points but I think getting bogged down in the ToS and details is side stepping the real issue here. At the end of the day Twitter moderates its own service, which is just their managers and random team members. Twitter sets the rules and can find any justification to ban whoever they want. Do you really think Twitter constrains themselves by their rules? I don't, they will change those rules…
My main concern is about even application of their policies across the board. If they say something is against their ToS and want to ban it, fine, that's on them. But apply that same thing to everyone. I don't like banning one piracy site but not another. Or banning random folks but not the President. I understand why it happens, just feels more wrong to me than any singular policy decision.
In my opinion: Should they ban misinformation? Yes. Should they ban piracy? I want to say no, but if I am really thinking about it they probably should when actually compared with the other things I say yes to. Makes me wonder what kind of ethics theory there is around these kinds of situations. Probably some good reading out there. Anyone know of any good things to read on the subject?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or didn't want to take the risk of using a somewhat experimental medicine (perhaps justifiably so, I don't know the details), or maybe the evidence is still promising but otherwise still very thin. Or they just didn't have the time to really research it as they also had dozens of other patients. There could be any number of reasons; without more details, I think it's quite a leap to immediately assume they're "lazy/o…
It's quite a leap unless you have worked extensively with doctors before and seen the behavior first hand too many times to count. I get why it happens: they have to deal directly with patients who 99% of the time are not research capable and if they claim to be research capable what they really mean is that they've been sharing conspiracy theories on facebook. Doctors build defense mechanisms against the nonsense (a…
As the doctors cycled out though it sort of reverted to the mean, back to the authoritarian stance you expect from doctors, since NICU doctors were constantly rotating out.
At some point we need to stop the hypocrisy, recognize that SciHub is too valuable to the community to be shut down, and fix laws so that it becomes either legal or useless. That's no easy task, but it's much better than having scientists from all over the world rely on it while simultaneously pretending they are dangerous criminals.
SciHub is quite valuable for independent researchers like me. But there are other ways to get free copies of articles: https://lee-phillips.org/articleAccess/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> After asking five different doctors about it, one finally agreed to prescribe it. Were the other four too lazy/orthodox to read the papers you're referencing? Or they read the papers and still thought it wasn't a good idea? I'm going to presume that the former is the case, unfortunately.
They had “read” them. The first time she mentioned the drug to a doctor he just snippily corrected her on the pronunciation but nothing else. My wife carefully documented everything the paper said in a “Cliff’s Notes” sort of version with links. The next meeting we had with them they were much less hostile, it was like night and day. I guess they were impressed by her careful note taking. Even so the doctor who did p…
I have personal experience with this as a patient and a family member of physicians. I wish I didn't know what docs say and think about their patients. It's a really unfortunate characteristic of the US medical system.
Isn't Twitter a private organization that can ban anyone they want?
I donated ~$300 to SciHub and encourage you all to donate as well. Please give what you can, her bitcoin address can be found at the bottom of the homepage. https://sci-hub.do/
Is there an Easy Sci-Hub Donation for Dummies? scihub.org/donate/ looks scam. https://sci-hub.tech/donation/ at least has the same bitcoin address as sci-hub.do, but as for PayPal et al... ???
At some point we need to stop the hypocrisy, recognize that SciHub is too valuable to the community to be shut down, and fix laws so that it becomes either legal or useless. That's no easy task, but it's much better than having scientists from all over the world rely on it while simultaneously pretending they are dangerous criminals.
Or does it have features that rely on centralisation at this point? Can this be remedied so that SciHub can be operational in a truly decentralized, Bitcoin-like manner, where governments can't interfere short of blocking entire networking protocols?
This is not really my area of expertise, but I'd like to understand the situation.
I did use SciHub myself this week to read a study that I needed -- not for an academic research problem or business operation, but to simply understand a health condition I personally suffer from.