[deleted]
Seconded.
Thirded.
Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
131–140 of 530 posts
Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#132Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#133[deleted]
Completely agreed. And as someone who strongly supported what Aaron did at the time (and thus disagreed with you, Ed, et al), this techcrunch "article" is still disgusting.
This public singling out of one of us for ad impressions should be taken personally by every commenter here. I know it's the 3072nd time someone has said this, but techcrunch.com should just really be added to the spam blacklist.
Unfortunately, flagging kills any ongoing discussion. Someone with the ability should just take it upon themselves to edit the url of this topic to be self-referential or point to the old topic.
Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#134Earlier 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.
just think, if this was google+ we would know edw519's real name and web of friends...
We already do know his real name: Ed Weissman.
Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Are you suggesting that this is what people should do, which might be a nice sentiment, but not particularly relevant to the issue at hand.
Or are you suggesting this is what people actually do, to the point of upvoting a comment past all others to the number 1 position. In this second case, I think you have a long way to go to prove your point.
Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#136Here is the HN thread from back then. Some of it makes for pretty uncomfortable reading right now. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529484
I want to change the focus here from all the negativity that was existent in HN to some positive stuff -- andrewljohnson's defense of Aaron, which now shows his incredible insight.
1) I don't think Aaron made more than six figures from Reddit. Soon after acquisition, he went on walkabout, and then he got canned. He probably got some money, but did not vest most of his share. So, don't worry - he's poor enough for your pity and support.
2) As to your second line of thought, that we should punish him because he consciously broke the law... I disagree with anyone on this forum who says that Aaron didn't know the potential consequences of his actions, and therefore should not be punished. But I also disagree with you.
This was a victimless crime, and the only ones pursuing it are some relentless G-men. Where is the corporation or person that has been wronged? Who, in the public, wants to pillory Aaron? What did Aaron gain? Do we really need to make an example of him, so this doesn't happen again? Is this really good a use of taxes?
My reaction is just shame and disgust... I mean, really? This brilliant kid is going to jail because of civil disobedience? Just so we can show there is still a book than can be thrown?
The prosecution's perspective is warped by incentives - we should never care about how prosecutors feel or think - they are just tools of the people. Prosecutors need convictions, promotions, and press to succeed at their jobs. At this point, it's not JSTOR who wants this case prosecuted, it's just government agents. And they are just going through the motions.
It may be up to a jury to do the right thing - they stand a better change of being unbiased, thankfully for Aaron.
Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that makes you uncomfortable then wait until you see this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=79982 "Is Aaron Swartz the Paris Hilton of Web 2.0?"
It's great to see PG leap immediately to the defense of Swartz in that thread, and that the comment was voted to the top.
Yeah. It's also interesting to watch this posthumous deification happening in real time, especially since so many people (who mostly didn't know him) considered him to be kind of a dabbler and a fuckup while he was still alive. Not saying all the praise is a bad thing or unwarranted by any means, just an observation. I never actually met him, but we shared a small footnote in history together: literally we were both cited in the same footnote of a book on the history of Wikipedia.
Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#138I don't think this post should be here-- it's turning a tragedy into a witch hunt. I don't think this level of negativity and mob mentality is appropriate for HN.
Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#139Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#140[deleted]
He certainly seemed to support the outrageous, overreaching prosecution that Aaron was facing.
"Aaron should man up, take responsibility for his actions, and pay his own bills."
This sounds a lot like "screw you, what you did is wrong, and you should quit whining about it."
"man up" clearly implies that Ed Weissman feels that going up against the massive US justice system to allow people without university affiliation or piles of cash to read publicly funded scientific research is an immature act.
As someone who has been blocked in the past from doing research because of lack of funds to pay the journals, this attitude disgusts me.
EDIT: Let me be absolutely clear that I am not implying that Ed had any blame in what happened or anything ridiculous like that. What I find objectionable in his commentary is his cavalier attitude towards the heavyhanded prosecution of those trying to make publicly funded research publicly available. This suggests a very elitist attitude towards the distribution of valuable public research.