Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#121

Post by kofejnik » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

lucideer wrote: post #83

obblekk wrote: post #38

I’m supportive of free distribution of scientific knowledge, BUT HN has a significant bias against believing in the power of legal systems. No matter how good the technology, it can eventually be censored if the law is strong enough. In the past, it was hard to separate “useful” internet activity from “illegitimate” because things were changing quickly. Today, a government might say its simply illegal to use end to e…

> No matter how good the technology, it can eventually be censored if the law is strong enough. I won't repeat sibling commenters here giving examples of where this is not true (US encryption mainly). I'm wondering if you have any examples of where it is true. What has been censored effectively? As far as I've been aware, legal censorship has never worked. "Cultural censorship" (a.k.a. "taboo") can be quite effective…

> As far as I've been aware, legal censorship has never worked. "Cultural censorship" (a.k.a. "taboo") can be quite effective, but I'm not aware of any examples where the law has been in any way effective at all in this area.

Sorry, but this is extremely naive. Russia routinely jails people for merely liking (not to mention, reposting) improper things on social media.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#122

Post by shakow » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 3:59 PM UTC

fjabre wrote: post #46

acdha wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elsevier and Wiley have a lot of lawyers who are likely arguing that leaving it up is condoning copyright infringement. There’s a long history of threats for anything related to targets of these lawsuits, and other companies taking something offline quickly to avoid being caught in the crossfire.

Hopefully with Dems in control we will see these companies punished for their bad behavior. Or at least laws passed that make the publication of research more open. The science should be funded and free. The applications of the science are where the money is to be made. These companies are unnecessary dinosaurs from a bygone era. It's time for them to fail and die off naturally. But it will probably take legislation…

> Or at least laws passed that make the publication of research more open.

Sci-hub was created under Obama, I don't remember neither him nor the party making anything to help them, quite the opposite actually: Elbakyan has been judged in absentia and sentenced twice under his presidency. Were she to put the foot on Western soil, she would pay it dearly thanks to this.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#123

Post by myWindoonn » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 3:59 PM UTC

lucideer wrote: post #83

obblekk wrote: post #38

I’m supportive of free distribution of scientific knowledge, BUT HN has a significant bias against believing in the power of legal systems. No matter how good the technology, it can eventually be censored if the law is strong enough. In the past, it was hard to separate “useful” internet activity from “illegitimate” because things were changing quickly. Today, a government might say its simply illegal to use end to e…

> No matter how good the technology, it can eventually be censored if the law is strong enough. I won't repeat sibling commenters here giving examples of where this is not true (US encryption mainly). I'm wondering if you have any examples of where it is true. What has been censored effectively? As far as I've been aware, legal censorship has never worked. "Cultural censorship" (a.k.a. "taboo") can be quite effective…

Sibling comments are being ignorant. The most famous born secret in the USA is how to make breeder reactors and nuclear weaponry; even if somebody independently rediscovers it, the government will censor them.

But, that said, our profession has never attempted a revolution where we explicitly try to breach this born secret. It's not clear whether we'd succeed, and the victory cup is literally nuclear waste, so it's not exactly desirable either.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#124

Post by DharmaPolice » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

obblekk wrote: post #38

I’m supportive of free distribution of scientific knowledge, BUT HN has a significant bias against believing in the power of legal systems. No matter how good the technology, it can eventually be censored if the law is strong enough. In the past, it was hard to separate “useful” internet activity from “illegitimate” because things were changing quickly. Today, a government might say its simply illegal to use end to e…

I think it depends on the goal of censorship. If you're trying to prevent a site (or service or group) reaching a certainly level of mass use then censorship definitely can work. There are a large number of piracy sites blocked in the UK by court order. The blocks are trivial to get round but they are probably effective for a good proportion of UK users.

But if the goal of censorship is to completely prevent a leaked fact from being communicated - that's much harder (and I'll say it's practically impossible after a certain point).

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#125

Post by tim333 » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 4:03 PM UTC

Triv888 wrote: post #10

Didn't last long? > sci-hub.hns/ could not be resolved by HNS.to. Please try another Handshake resolver..

Didn't work for me either. I'm not that impressed compared with my usual technique of going to the site's Wikipedia page to see how to access it. Works for thing's like Sci Hub, Popcorn Time and the Daily Stormer.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#126

Post by Symbiote » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #85

eternalban wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word you are looking for is 'directory'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_directory

"Telephone directory" is a term that pretty much no one uses for phonebook.

Unless you're an expert on worldwide English use, it's best not to make such sweeping generalizations.

A straightforward search for the term brings up large sites in the UK, India, Malta and Hong Kong. "Directory Enquiries" was (is?) the name for the service in the UK where you pay a fee for someone to look in the telephone directory for you.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#127

Post by azernik » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #21

People have been trying to make alternative DNS name systems and alternative root nameservers a thing for 20+ years now. Has never caught on. On the other hand I 100% endorse sci-hub having a presence as a tor service.

I am continually shocked that sci-hub still does not have a working .onion address.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#128

Post by meragrin_ » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 4:06 PM UTC

cleansy wrote: post #119

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit has conveniently left him out of their about page, despite being a cofounder: https://www.redditinc.com/ About Aaron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

Reddit’s founders seem to be pretty spineless for doing so. I didn’t even realise that they removed him..

I don't believe the Reddit founders ever considered him a founder. Tweet from 2011: https://twitter.com/alexisohanian/status/93374221685755904

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#129

Post by MacsHeadroom » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 4:06 PM UTC

llcoolv wrote: post #40

happytoexplain wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first Tweet attempts to coopt the memory of him to legitimize an unsubstantive jab in an ideological battle that is adjacent to academic literature. That's sickening.

Yes, my interpretation of his actions is also way more moderate.

His actions in the JSTOR situation were ultimately deemed lawful.

But, without passing judgement one way or the other, Aaron's beliefs about free speech and information freedom which informed his activism cannot be reasonably described as moderate.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#130

Post by NoSorryCannot » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

cleansy wrote: post #119

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit has conveniently left him out of their about page, despite being a cofounder: https://www.redditinc.com/ About Aaron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

Reddit’s founders seem to be pretty spineless for doing so. I didn’t even realise that they removed him..

Reddit seems pretty unprincipled in general. Their decisions wouldn't be so bad if they appeared to stem from a coherent principle but overall they seem to only be reacting and doing whatever is politically expedient in the moment.

Not unlike most orgs I suppose.