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

Tell HN: Aaron Swartz died today, 8 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 201 posts

Re: Tell HN: Aaron Swartz died today, 8 years ago

#141

Post by jonathanlb »

webXL wrote: post #48
cbozeman wrote: post #10

Although Aaron made enormous contributions to many different technologies, I often think of reddit when I think of Aaron. I often wonder how he would feel, not just about censorship there, but about the direction the entire Internet has taken in regards to censoring of content. I can't - and wouldn't - speak for him, but I would be supremely interested in his thoughts.

Aaron seemed very opposed to large corporations and their control of information. The increase of control seems to be timed and in favor with the incoming administration. Government using business to do its bidding is very troubling, and I'm sure Aaron would have been very concerned about that. Remember, this increase of power can be wielded by the next populist leader and there are plenty of dark possibilities outsi…

> The increase of control seems to be timed and in favor with the incoming administration. Government using business to do its bidding is very troubling

Is that really the case with Facebook, Twitter, et al.? Didn't Facebook and Twitter have favorable standing with Trump's administration (vis a vis keeping Trump on the platform despite his violating their ToS repeatedly)?

Re: Tell HN: Aaron Swartz died today, 8 years ago

#142

Post by totalZero »

cies wrote: post #11
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #7

Driving someone to suicide because they acted against entrenched copyright interests was one of the most DoJ moments ever.

Hence I reflect on this as murder by the state. It happened before (like Gary Webb), and sadly I'm afraid it will happen again. They (govt) seems more interested in big corp's needs than people's needs. This democracy-thing is a big lie, a facade. RIP Aaron.

Gary Webb's suicide involved two shots to the head -- quite a feat. I find it difficult to believe that he killed himself.

Personally, I also find it difficult to believe that Aaron Swartz killed himself.

Re: Tell HN: Aaron Swartz died today, 8 years ago

#143

Post by stuckindider »

throwawaygulf wrote: post #38

"Thanks Obama!" This was unfortunately one of the many casualties in the war the Obama DoJ raged on the country. It's unconscionable.

Whether it is by drone strike your using you to make an example, the nobel peace prize winner will murder you somehow.

Re: Tell HN: Aaron Swartz died today, 8 years ago

#144

Post by rwmurrayVT »

FDSGSG wrote: post #51
xadhominemx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aaron already suffered from severe mental illness - law enforcement did not drive him to suicide. Prosecutors offered him a plea deal if he took a six month sentence in a low security facility, which he turned down before killing himself. 99.9% of people his age would not end up dead by their own hands in that situation.

Actually he was offered even less, 4 months. http://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aa... >The alternative sentence to consider is what Swartz would have received if he had agreed to plead guilty. According to Swartz’s lawyers, the prosecutors in the case offered two different pleas. First, they would agree to a sentence of four months if Swartz agreed to plead guilty to the felonies. And second, t…

The judge is not bound by a plea agreement in federal court.

Re: Tell HN: Aaron Swartz died today, 8 years ago

#145

Post by Reedx »

webXL wrote: post #103
Reedx wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a sitting President can be deplatformed from the Internet, then wouldn't a Presidential Candidate be? Would said candidate be able to run a successful campaign without it?

> someone eloquent, competent, and thoroughly able to move effectively in the political sphere How will they be able to deplatform that? Are you endorsing deplatforming anyone to the right of Joe Biden?

No, just extrapolating from here. It could be used against the next Bernie too. Any populist candidate, whether from the left or right.

Re: Tell HN: Aaron Swartz died today, 8 years ago

#147

Post by rhaksw »

cbozeman wrote: post #10

Although Aaron made enormous contributions to many different technologies, I often think of reddit when I think of Aaron. I often wonder how he would feel, not just about censorship there, but about the direction the entire Internet has taken in regards to censoring of content. I can't - and wouldn't - speak for him, but I would be supremely interested in his thoughts.

Part of the current dilemma is people think only other people's comments are removed [1]. The more people who discover how it works, the less people can take advantage of those who don't.

[1] https://www.reveddit.com

Re: Tell HN: Aaron Swartz died today, 8 years ago

#148

Post by tzs »

maccard wrote: post #25
xadhominemx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aaron already suffered from severe mental illness - law enforcement did not drive him to suicide. Prosecutors offered him a plea deal if he took a six month sentence in a low security facility, which he turned down before killing himself. 99.9% of people his age would not end up dead by their own hands in that situation.

From wikipedia: > On September 12, 2012, federal prosecutors filed a superseding indictment adding nine more felony counts, which increased Swartz's maximum criminal exposure to 50 years of imprisonment and $1 million in fines. During plea negotiations with Swartz's attorneys, the prosecutors offered to recommend a sentence of six months in a low-security prison, if Swartz would plead guilty to 13 federal crimes. Swa…

When you see a DoJ press release talking about someone potentially facing a very long sentence, they don't mean that the particular person being indicted is facing such a sentence.

They mean that if you take the maximum possible sentence that someone could get for each individual charge, and then added up all those individual maximums, you get their press release figure.

There are two big problems with that.

1. Various federal crimes are grouped for sentencing. Roughly, if one single act could be charged with N different crimes, and you are convicted for all N the sentence is not sum of the sentences for each, it is max of the sentences for each. An indictment, say, of 5 charges each with a 20 year max but that all fall in the same group would be listed as 100 years in the press release, but would really only be 20.

I find it appalling that the DoJ does not take into account grouping when writing press releases. Unlike point #2 below, grouping doesn't have much of a subjective component that won't be resolved until trial. DoJ has everything needed when they write the press release to figure out what charges group.

2. The maximum listed for each charge is what someone who committed the worst imaginable instance of that crime could get. Someone who had all the various factors that can affect sentence length go against them.

Unless you are doing your crime for a lot of money, as part of something like a drug cartel or the mob, people got physical hurt or there was a good chance they could have, you caused huge economic loses, and you have a serious prior criminal record, you ain't getting anywhere near the max.

First time offender, not for monetary gain, no one physically hurt, not doing it as part of some larger criminal enterprise? Somewhere near the low end, with a decent chance of just a few years parole instead of jail time.

Here are some articles. The first covers federal sentencing in general. The second two cover it in the context of the Swartz case and also look at each charge.

https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...

http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/

http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...

Re: Tell HN: Aaron Swartz died today, 8 years ago

#149

Post by joshuahaglund »

kypro wrote: post #109
btown wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> censoring of content The supreme irony of this is that Aaron's role as a co-founder has long been censored from Reddit's founders page [0], despite agreements to the contrary [1]. More generally, Aaron had strong views on censorship [2]: > I think all censorship should be deplored. My position is that bits are not a bug – that we should create communications technologies that allow people to send whatever they like…

> But I do think that physical violence resulting in part from the amplification of voices by algorithm would have been hard to foresee. I too would be curious if his thinking would have evolved. Sadly, we'll never know. Something that always seems to be accepted without question in these conversations is that censoring violent language will reduce violent behaviour. Are we sure this is the case? For example, if you…

It is not obvious that having someone publicly call for trial by combat at the capitol increases the probability of that happening, compared to no public proclamation? But what you're saying is that removing said content is going to somehow increase the violent behavior? By what means? Because you followed someone into to a cesspool? Then you were already drinking diluted pollution.

People do not get banned simply for being a member of a political party, people get banned for spreading hate and inciting violence. Maybe you should reconsider who you follow if the people you follow wallow in hate and bigotry?

Why doesn't the party of individual responsibility doesn't seem to understand you can just stop following the hate? Seek out and follow reasonable voices. But I'm afraid the whole appeal is more emotional resonance more than reason.

Tolerating hateful violent rhetoric will not de radicalize anyone.

Post reply on HN