Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by anu_gupta » Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 10:13 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #68

danem wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the contrast? edw519's past remarks remain consistent with the one you've linked to in your comment. Expressing the idea that Aaron should be expected take responsibility for his actions does not imply any ill will on edw519's part. Why does this issue have to be made into something so polarizing? With many here, it's either you believe Aaron should've been able to walk away scot-free, or you support an oppr…

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…

So, instead of saying nothing, why did he feel compelled to tell Aaron to 'man up'?

I have no idea why you're making excuses for him based on his not understanding the situation. Can't he speak for himself?

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

#152

Post by woah » Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 10:13 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #146

woah wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 affiliatio…

[deleted]

I'm willing to consider other view points, can you explain why?

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

#153

Post by django34211 » Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 10:13 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #146

woah wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 affiliatio…

[deleted]

"Aaron should man up, take responsibility for his actions, and pay his own bills."

~Ed

Sounds like Ed was a bit harsh on someone who was going through allot of trouble. The comment was excessively cruel. Not to mention it was the top comment, which must of added large dosage of salt on an already wounded soul.

So he(Ed) rightfully deserves any criticism thrown at him.

It's such a tool bag comment, Ed should apologize. Your defending such a vitriolic comment, sorry but you sound like scum.

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

#154

Post by jacquesm » Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 10:15 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #137

lancewiggs wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What bugs me a lot more than the meanness in either of those two historical threads is some of the stuff that happened in the last 3 days. That's the part I can not get my head wrapped around. It really bugs me.

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

#155

Post by drivingmenuts » Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 10:15 PM UTC

Asking that someone own up to their responsibilities or shoulder their own problems is ABSOLUTELY NOT the same as wishing them dead.

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

#156

Post by shock » Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 10:16 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #150

danso wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

119 days ago would have been Sspt. 17, several days before this Sept. 20 Ars Technica piece: "Feds go overboard in prosecuting information activist" http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/feds-go-overboard... (I'm not sure how well known the obstacles Aaron faced were besides this article, this just recently made the front page after his death) Would reading this piece back then (or before Aaron's HN post) been e…

[deleted]

That's your defense? "He didn't know!"? Try that in a court of law.

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

#157

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 10:16 PM UTC

raganwald wrote: post #87

oinksoft wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

[deleted]

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

#158

Post by mbesto » Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 10:16 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #104

[deleted]

This is what I consider the sick side of journalism. It does nothing but serve pageviews to TC. What irks me even more is the fact that I had to serve them up a pageview just to see context.

Is there a Chrome extension to (1) disallow me from going to their website and (2) remove their links from visibility on HN?

I've already created a mental ban on their website (because I think it's utter filth), but now I think I need to take a step further.

EDIT - Just realized the article was written by Arrington. Go figure.

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

#159

Post by rhizome » Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 10:17 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #101

MartinCron wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would also add "lighten up" and "stop taking things so seriously" to the list of hugely degrading phrases.

It is often difficult to discern between those that will bring excessive drama to any situation and those that are in serious peril.

In this context, here's a hint: don't blame the sufferer. You don't tell someone with Multiple Sclerosis to just exercise more or a poor person to just make more money. It's facile and cruel and unhelpful.

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

#160

Post by thaumaturgy » Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 10:17 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #104

[deleted]

> He gave his honest appraisal of what was happening in a current events story on a message board, based on the facts available to us at the time, which included none of the outrageous details that have come to light in the last few days.

So, so true. I mean, it's not like people could have simply, y'know, avoided speculating publicly on another person's case when they didn't have all the facts.

No, don't go trying to direct the flames back at TechCrunch. Ed is consistently one of the nicest damn people on HN, and it's a bit of a shame that he ended up being the example that they pointed to. But, let's not pretend that HN isn't full of people that will wring an ocean out of their hands one day when it's popular and then go right back to slinging insults at each-other the next.

If this article results in a little bit of navel gazing for a few people here, great. I doubt that it will, though.