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

201–210 of 530 posts

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

#201

Post by jacquesm »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #187
citricsquid wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

I don't understand this sentiment at all. What's wrong with simply not commenting? HN isn't a semi-private coffee shop; this whole post illustrates quite nicely that what is said here is public and long-lasting. Let's try this on for a little more discomfort: what do you think the odds are that Aaron himself read the comments of a few threads posted here about his case? Your entire argument here seems predicated upon…

> what do you think the odds are that Aaron himself read the comments of a few threads posted here about his case?

About 100% or so. That's the bit that hurts the most.

The simple solution is this: If you're going to say something positive, absent information feel free to do so.

On the other hand, if you're going to say something negative you'd better make damn sure you know what it is that you're talking about. If you don't those words might take on a life of their own at some unspecified point in the future.

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

#202

Post by RegEx »

kamakazizuru wrote: post #172
shock wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

his point is pretty clear @tptacek - he's saying that just because edw519 didnt know the facts - doesnt make it okay for him to have been a caustic douche back then.

He made a judgement based on the information provided to him. It wasn't conveyed in a nice tone, sure, and that's unfortunate. I'd prefer if everyone was nice, but sometimes things just come out really, really nasty.

The usual consequence is to take your downvotes/criticisms and move on...not to become the center of some impromptu witch hunt.

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

#203

Post by JohnsonB »

jacquesm wrote: post #161
django34211 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

(1) hindsight is 20-20 (2) the facts as we know then today were not readily apparent back then (even to those that were actively seeking those facts) (3) Ed has a longstanding history of compassion and care (4) mistakes were made, but there is nobody to apologise to. Can we please stop the mobbing? Thanks.

The feds going after a 20-something idealistic activist, who we all knew was completely harmless, and hadn't committed a real crime? That can't be anything other than a severe and cruel abuse of power. I'm sorry but enough information was known at the time to conclude what was going on.

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

#204

Post by mrtron »

AndrewWarner wrote: post #120

edw519 is a good member of this community. Let's not turn on each other. After researching founders for my interviews I can tell you that it's easy to make anyone look bad based on old posts. It's much harder to stay focused on what's important.

It is rather unfair to single one person out too - the sentiment of the initial thread was in line with edw519's comments.

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

#206

Post by graue »

jacquesm wrote: post #26
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 read through that thread for about an hour before seeing this here and I agree with your assessment, another one that I've read was this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4528083

That discussion seems much more favorable to Aaron. The top comment's supportive, and even his detractors, like 'bstar77, are measured in their criticism:

> I sincerely hope that he gets the punishment he deserves which should be a firm slap on the wrist. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of him getting any jail time

I'm starting to suspect that HN discussions have a pretty strong snowball effect where it begins to seem like everyone agrees with the early comments near the top.

It sucks that people were so harsh in the first thread. One big takeaway from Aaron's story for me, is that whenever someone is facing federal prosecution, consider that a huge risk factor for stress and mental breakdown, and err on the side of sympathy. This also reaffirms my principle of siding with individual humans (Aaron) over institutions (JSTOR, MIT, DOJ). I'm not out to get anyone if they're the former inflicting a minor institutional flesh wound on the latter.

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

#207

Post by citricsquid »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #192
citricsquid wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aaron did something wrong [/edit: wrong in the eyes of the law: illegal, poor word choice/], something that he knew was wrong and that is an accepted fact, correct? If he did something he knew was wrong then what edw519 said is right, he should "man up" and accept the consequences, as everyone should do when they do something wrong. The problem is what has come to light since that post was made, it has come to light…

See, here's the problem. In one sentence you're arguing that he should "accept the consequences", and in literally the very next sentence, you're describing how bad the consequences ended up being. That is what is wrong with saying, "just accept the consequences", when you have no damn idea what the consequences are.

A story and the reality are always different. The story as presented to people at the time was Aaron had done something (legally) wrong and was in trouble for doing it, some people believed what he did was for a just cause (education material should be free) and others didn't.

If the people reading the story at the time were expected to act on the situation by donating, why is it wrong for them to act in the form of a comment? How can it be fair to say people should have donated based on their understanding of the situation but not be able to comment on the situation?

Every single person in that comment thread is just as guilty of wrong doing if edw519 is guilty of any, because they all formed an opinion around something they knew very little of. It just so happens that the opinion edw519 expressed is unfortunately one that is at odds with the reality of the situation.

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

#208

Post by RegEx »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #192
citricsquid wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aaron did something wrong [/edit: wrong in the eyes of the law: illegal, poor word choice/], something that he knew was wrong and that is an accepted fact, correct? If he did something he knew was wrong then what edw519 said is right, he should "man up" and accept the consequences, as everyone should do when they do something wrong. The problem is what has come to light since that post was made, it has come to light…

See, here's the problem. In one sentence you're arguing that he should "accept the consequences", and in literally the very next sentence, you're describing how bad the consequences ended up being. That is what is wrong with saying, "just accept the consequences", when you have no damn idea what the consequences are.

> when you have no damn idea what the consequences are

Because this is unprecedented. People are still shocked at the excessive nature of the charges. No one expected it. To expect everything to be so severe would be paranoia.

Post reply on HN