Sci-Hub Founder Criticizes Sudden Twitter Ban over “Counterfeit” Content • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by Bedon292 » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

illustriousbear wrote: post #87

Bedon292 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posting election misinformation violates Twitter ToS, and since the election he has posted something violating that policy (in their judgment) if not every day, very close to it. These policies have been around since before the election [1]. These examples don't appear to be hypocritical to me on the surface, but I am certainly open to more information. Many people are not happy with Kathy Griffin doing that, on both…

My only problem with this is who determines what is election misinformation? If Russian authorities call another dubious election in favor of Putin, do we just accept that now and ban any dissenting opinions? I mean after all their authorities have set the official narrative, isn't anything else misinformation now?

While I think the comparison is a bit unfair, it does raise an interesting dilemma. I really don't know what you do in that situation. I don't think their government would be considered the trusted authorities on the matter, but who would be? At the same time Twitter is not a Russian company and does not have a large Russian presence that I know of. Are they under any moral obligation to help maintain free and fair elections there? Where they may feel like they are for the US.

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

#102

Post by FabHK » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 4:58 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #3

I'm not sure how that fits within the counterfeit rule. If they weren't the real papers at scihub wouldn't it be all OK? The issue seems to be that the problem (according to publishers) is that the real papers are available not behind a pay wall. The issue here isn't that the users of scihub are being defrauded by thinking they're ordering Prada and instead getting knockoffs. Not saying I endorse scihub BTW, just tha…

Interesting point. You could argue that a (good) counterfeit Louis Vuitton bag or Rolex provides the same functionality as the original, without the 90% tax to the rights holder.

So, maybe the situation is quite analog: The paper you download is actually more or less the same as the original, but you haven't paid the rights holder, so it's counterfeit.

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

#103

Post by andrewprock » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 4:58 PM UTC

rootsudo wrote: post #57

Why do we even allow twitter this power. Stop using twitter.

This is certainly the best advice. Personally I find Twitter to be the worst of the worst forum formats, and it bugles my mind that anyone actually enjoys using it.

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

#104

Post by Mediterraneo10 » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 4:58 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…

Do many Elsevier journals provide copyediting on the part of the corporation? Many of the big scholarly publishers today expect the burden of copyediting and even typesetting to fall on the author or unpaid editors, and then the unpaid authors or editors are expected to provide camera-ready output to the publisher.

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

#105

Post by hndudette2 » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

arp242 wrote: post #58

hndudette2 wrote: post #43

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.

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…

I'm going off my experience with doctors that I know personally. There's definitely a personality type or an attitude there that shuts them off to things that a layperson will bring to them even if it's based on good science (only they haven't studied it before).

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

#106

Post by TheRealSteel » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

wincy wrote: post #33

xnyan wrote: post #4

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…

I myself have used SciHub this very week to understand a medical condition that is taking over my life, before seeing a very expensive private specialist soon.

SciHub gave me access to valuable information that helped me understand my condition and the right questions to ask my doctor next week.

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

#107

Post by wincy » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #86

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…

Thank you for sharing an inspiring story. When my mom was diagnosed with breast cancer my dad poured over literally hundreds of medical papers to determine the best course of action. I believe he saved her life. Scihub was instrumental in that. I helped a little in checking and challenging his conclusions. I think it's unlikely she would have had as good an outcome if we'd just listened to the doctors. My conclusion…

My wife has the sharp mind of an engineer, but she was humble about reading the literature slowly and deliberately. She knows she’s not a doctor. However she was firm in asking the doctors questions about what she read, getting clarifications and not being satisfied with answers like “this is how it’s done” and would keep asking until things were explained. The doctors thought she was just obstinate against any procedure which was frustrating. She used the doctors as a resource, then made the most informed decision she felt she could. We got second opinions from experts at other children’s hospitals.

I feel sort of sick remembering one meeting where they told us our daughter would get 24 hour nursing care covered by insurance if we got her a tracheotomy, what a weird carrot to dangle in front of a parent. I think they thought what they were suggesting was the best medical choice but a baby with a trach needs 24-hour care because it can’t even cry when the tube is in its throat.

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

#108

Post by raverbashing » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

wincy wrote: post #33

xnyan wrote: post #4

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…

> It was strange how reticent doctors were to prescribe something and instead just told us she was going to die. If she’s believed to be terminal anyway, why not prescribe a relatively well known drug and see if it helps?

Because according to EBM nothing exists and nothing works unless it's proven with a big RCT.

Yes, it's ridiculous. Especially as in your case.

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

#109

Post by matheusmoreira » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #27

joelthelion wrote: post #7

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 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…

How about we target the laws that enable this obnoxious gatekeeping in the first place? We should simply get rid of copyright.

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

#110

Post by eganist » Fri, Jan 08, 2021, 5:04 PM UTC

TheRealSteel wrote: post #100

joelthelion wrote: post #7

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.

Could/has SciHub been replicated with a database of magnet links to torrents of papers, or similar? 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 t…

Are scientists prohibited from distributing their own research and papers for free as part of their standard contracts with the big journals? If not, then magnet links make sense; researchers can then seed their own papers, and by downloading from them, you're essentially downloading a paper with their consent.

And of course the magnet links isolate sci-hub. And it provides necessary and practical non-piracy validity to torrenting, which helps keep that protocol alive further.