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

How The Chronicle is trying to malign Sci-Hub

engineuring.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 174 posts

Re: How The Chronicle is trying to malign Sci-Hub

#121

Post by fennecfoxen »

platz wrote: post #118
fennecfoxen wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall reading about an incident where a journalist with access to North Korea was detained for a while over a phrase that said a guard "barked" orders, as the locals deemed a comparison to a dog rather unflattering. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36200530

Maybe the connotations that you are used to subconsciously ignoring are actually still there after all. btw, if I find a new species of donkey, I will name it after you.

and in turn, if I find a new species of invisible pink unicorn, the honor shall be thine.

that is to say, neither of us will do either of these things; what are you even talking about?

Re: How The Chronicle is trying to malign Sci-Hub

#122

Post by worldsayshi »

pessimizer wrote: post #82
tokai wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is getting a bit embarrassing. Wished she disregarded things about her person. All kind of stuff is going to be said and written about you when your a globally known person. Better, and healthier, to focus on defending the cause and not yourself.

> All kind of stuff is going to be said and written about you when your a globally known person. There are powerful people who would be happy to imprison or kill her. It's weird to call a revolutionary who is in the spotlight paranoid. A couple of administration changes and a sex or bribery scandal in some place she's never even visited could set off a series of events where she ends up like Assange or worse.

Yeah but it feels is neither weird to be called or be paranoid in that situation. Some things that Assange has said definitely comes off as paranoid and perhaps completely off but he also has had more reasons than almost anyone to be paranoid.

When you have powerful enemies and know it you're probably not better at recognizing where they are lurking about than anyone else. So you end up lashing out at shadows. Who can blame you.

Re: How The Chronicle is trying to malign Sci-Hub

#123

Post by babyblueblanket »

nix23 wrote: post #114
pessimizer wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's the one delivering that access. And if you want to define sole decisionmaking power as dictatorship, I'm the dictator of the cookies I baked yesterday, too. You're free to provide access to the papers yourself.

>I'm the dictator of the cookies I baked yesterday Your cookies are not important for the scientific world, and she is NOT the baker of the Scientific papers, just a publisher, and since it's not her content she has even less rights to block a country from partially self made work. Don't you see the irony in it? >...to remove all barriers in the way of science (but don't name insects after me)

If she's just a publisher, feel free to publish it yourself.

Re: How The Chronicle is trying to malign Sci-Hub

#124

Post by ineedasername »

pessimizer wrote: post #84
nix23 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you see a problem here? >>Blocking access to ~free knowledge because one is offended >it's largely just her Yeah and that's the problem, with all dictatorships. >It's not like this is a massively collaborative project Who then uploads the content? Her alone?

She's the one delivering that access. And if you want to define sole decisionmaking power as dictatorship, I'm the dictator of the cookies I baked yesterday, too. You're free to provide access to the papers yourself.

Imagine your stated mission was to provide cookies for everyone in town because the local cookie factory charged $100 each. Then one kid said they didn't like the cookie, so you banned all kids from eating them.

You'd be within your rights, sure. But you would also be a going back and violating your own ideals.

So, sure, it's her site, her rules, but I think it's fair to expect someone to uphold their principals and be disappointed when they don't.

Re: How The Chronicle is trying to malign Sci-Hub

#125

Post by mustafa_pasi »

austhrow743 wrote: post #31
lovasoa wrote: post #15

The original article presents her in a very bright light, as a smart and brave woman who is engaged in a legal battle against large greedy corporations. And I find the photo quite cool. I think she is just overly susceptible, and maybe a little bit paranoid (which is understandable for a person with enemies as powerful as hers). This reminds me of the time when a russian entomologist named a new wasp species he disco…

I was surprised reading the Chronicle article after her own post. If it hadn't been from the archive.org link I would have been certain they went back and added "Elbakyan, who is originally from Kazakhstan, has a bachelor’s degree in computer science and coded Sci-Hub herself." after she complained but nope, there all the time. Also "Pirate Queen"? "beloved outlaw"? They couldn't have made her sound cooler if they tr…

> "Pirate Queen"? "beloved outlaw"?

Cool titles, but I can see why she might not want to be lumped in with the general file sharing community. I don't think open access science should be in the same category as pirating Hollywood movies and cracking videogames.

Re: How The Chronicle is trying to malign Sci-Hub

#126

Post by [deleted] »

nix23 wrote: post #102
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who then uploads the content? Her alone? Not lately, but usually she does a fair share of it. And she's the sole curator.

Yeah...when Fan's overlook the downsides. Why do you block access (for a whole country) when someone gave your name to a wasp?

[deleted]

Re: How The Chronicle is trying to malign Sci-Hub

#127

Post by ineedasername »

babyblueblanket wrote: post #123
nix23 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm the dictator of the cookies I baked yesterday Your cookies are not important for the scientific world, and she is NOT the baker of the Scientific papers, just a publisher, and since it's not her content she has even less rights to block a country from partially self made work. Don't you see the irony in it? >...to remove all barriers in the way of science (but don't name insects after me)

If she's just a publisher, feel free to publish it yourself.

I think you're side-stepping the point: It is valid to point out her self-contradiction of her ideals.

I can even understand her anger: she's been harassed with lawsuits in multiple countries and companies have probably had her personally investigated in those efforts. Paranoia isn't really even the appropriate word in that case.

But it's still an extreme overreaction and contradiction of her ideals to block an entire country over one person's insult.

Re: How The Chronicle is trying to malign Sci-Hub

#128

Post by kleiba »

berdario wrote: post #116
kleiba wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a very abstract thought, one that could possibly lead to a very interesting philosophical discussion about society. In the mean time, however, we live in a market economy where publishers exist, and they are a business. Of course they are interested in customers, and yes, they would be scientists and students. Am I saying that that's the best way to organize academic publishing? No. What I'm saying is that I…

> I believe in a system where the people can critically assess and evaluate all laws and regulations and has the power to get them changed. I don't believe in a system where people can just pick the laws and regulations that suit them and choose to ignore the other ones. Fair. For the record, I don't believe in neither of the two systems that you describe, or rather... I don't think that those descriptions are meanin…

Thanks for this nice post.

I certainly mean the first reading of "can", as in "to be able to". You are right, though, that in reality, there are no absolutes. However, by and large, of course people who live in a democracy absolutely have the power to cause societal change - it's just that it's not an easy process and there are certainly parties who are interested in roadblocking this ability for their own benefits.

As for your list of questions toward the end, I have opinions on a number of them. As I'm sure you might have too. A small text box on HN is probably not going to do it for a thorough discussion, though, I suggest we take ourselves a couple of thousands years of time and enough tea to make any progress on them at all.

Re: How The Chronicle is trying to malign Sci-Hub

#129

Post by ineedasername »

qwertox wrote: post #120

We're kind of lucky for having so many precise SDK-, Framework- and Language documentations freely available. Just imagine how painful it would be if you'd need some kind of subscription from some centralized companies only to find out which methods a class has and what exactly they do. Does it feel like this to not have access to papers in the scientific community? I can't tell, because I don't read papers. All I ne…

Does it feel like this to not have access to papers in the scientific community?

Yes, it's very frustrating read a paper and see a citation to something that would be useful only to see that your library doesn't subscribe to it. At least if it's a book you can get it by inter-library loan, so that's a little better than journal articles.

Re: How The Chronicle is trying to malign Sci-Hub

#130

Post by wizzwizz4 »

radmuzom wrote: post #107
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Richard Stallman wasn't attacked for doing the right thing. The first time you're thinking of, he was attacked over a misunderstanding when he wrote about a controversial topic, and people's general resentment of him bubbled over and made it a big thing. The second (more recent) one, he was attacked over unresigning , and because he pushed a lot of people away from Free Software. Alexandra Elbakyan has, to my kn…

> "Richard Stallman wasn't attacked for doing the right thing." He absolutely was. For defending a dead person who was being accused of sexual assault. Most people won't even take the risk of tarnishing their own reputation given that the accused is dead.

He did that. That's not why he was being attacked (certainly not the second time). I like Richard Stallman as much as the next person, but don't pretend he's a saint. (Although, technically…)
Post reply on HN