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

Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 530 posts

Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago

#81

Post by wavesounds »

jacquesm wrote: post #71
andrewtbham wrote: post #54

"unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge." Considering the outcome... Does anyone know an example of what judges do when defendants appeal openly for financial help? Was this really good legal advice?

I suspect - but this pure conjecture on my part, IADNAL and so on - that this may have something to do with prejudicing a potential jury. Any jury member that knows about a case before being sworn in is automatically disqualified. Giving potentially nationwide attention to your case by running a funding drive in your name would pollute any potential jury. Again, please don't put too much weight on this, it is purely…

I think he should have risked pissing off the judge and getting the word out, but hindsight is 20/20. Its sad this is the way our justice system works, feels like a modern day witch trial.

Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago

#82

Post by lancefisher »

I distinctly remember that thread, and not commenting. I was disappointed at the responses. I had given a small amount towards his defense fund since I thought his goals were worthwhile. I consider it a privilege to have contributed.

Now, I wish I had given more, and I wish I had commented on that thread.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago

#84

Post by MrScruff »

And the witch hunt continues. This is all very reminiscent of the furore around the prank call nurse who committed suicide in the UK, with people calling for the unfortunate DJs to be charged with murder. I would have expected a more rational, dispassionate response from this crowd.

Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago

#85

Post by bjourne »

ultimoo wrote: post #34
kyro wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something particularly bugs me about edw519's comments in the thread you linked to and the recent one about the tragedy -- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5047571 . It's an odd contrast.

Let's remember the original comment is the top one because it was voted so by the community.

Isn't the idea to upvote useful and interesting comments? A message can be of value even if you greatly disagree with the content of it.

Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago

#87

Post by raganwald »

oinksoft wrote: post #40
glhaynes wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why: edw519 could easily and reasonably think that what Aaron did was wrong while being very sad that he committed suicide.

A more cynical observation is that users with high "karma" point totals earn this by parroting the majority opinion or otherwise treating comment threads as a game.

That's not an observation, it's a conjecture, and one that is fairly baseless. many things operate according to a power law. If karma is like that, a small number of users will end up with a shitload of karma points even if they aren't attempting to game the system.

There are many factors that could contribute to a power law for karma distribution. One conjecture is that other users tend to "trust" high-karma users and therefore tend to upvote their comments just because they have high karma.

Another is that high-karma users receive gratification from using HN and therefore use it more. Which leads to getting more karma.

Either of the two conjectures I advanced could explain a small number of users having a disproportionate amount of Karma.

Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago

#88

Post by supercanuck »

joeco wrote: post #9

It seems significant to me. There are a lot of users on HN whose default move is to criticize whatever story just made the main page. Maybe that's not the best default position.

My interpretation is that a lot of users are willing to cast a judgement with only a small percentage of the information available. This is why so many opinions on this topic, in hindsight look, shall we say, awkward ... to say the least.

The real value, for me in HN, is on topics where real discussions take place and other users are able to produce more information on topics, not so much where highly rated, articulate power users grace us with their opinions.

Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago

#89

Post by citricsquid »

kyro wrote: post #75
tptacek wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone here who has paid any attention to Ed whatsoever believe he would have written that comment had he known that Aaron had already been financially ruined by an overzealous prosecution that had confronted him with a dilemma of pleading guilty to 13 felonies and spending 6 months in prison or taking a crap-shot at 6-7 years in prison? NOBODY KNEW THESE DETAILS AT THE TIME. Aaron was apparently prevented from…

No, but he did assume he was asking for funds simply because he wasn't manning up. How many hundreds read/upvoted and made the same assumption? He should've held his judgment, especially with the weight he carries around here. I've been reading his comments for years. I know he's a good guy, but I still think it was a stupid comment to make.

    No, but he did assume he was asking for funds simply because he 
    wasn't manning up
How can any comment ever be made on the internet about something happening then if every commenter is expected to a) assume they know very little of the situation b) not make judgement c) later be held accountable for what they've said based on information not known at the time?

Do people need to start including disclaimers when they comment? "This comment is based on my understanding of the situation as presented by the article and would be revised if new things come to light that are not included in this article"?

Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago

#90

Post by jamesaguilar »

bradleyland wrote: post #38
SeanDav wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ouch, some heavy-weight posters there that would probably like to rephrase their opinions in light of current events.

I don't know that they would, or that they should. Aaron's actions were not a matter of some simple black & white reasoning. Some of the comments come across as harsh criticism for someone who has recently passed, but these were comments before he passed. The context cannot be separated from the content in this case. I hold a lot of the same views as Aaron. This is especially true in the case of the PACER incident, w…

I'm still in roughly the same place I was. He was smart enough that he knew or ought to have known that what he was doing was illegal. I feel bad for the guy in an empathetic sense, because he believed in what he was doing, but not bad enough to cough up my own money for an almost hopeless defense.

Definitely agree that both sides of an argument can have good points. If you don't see that as being the case here, maybe read this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_..., which is part of the "Politics is the Mind-Killer" series on LessWrong.

Post reply on HN