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

391–400 of 530 posts

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

#391

Post by fakeer »

spinlocked wrote: post #348
chernevik wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Utter and complete nonsense. Someone offers a thoughtful and considered opinion, and that's "cyberbullying"? Disagreeing with an opinion you hold, no matter how intelligently and reasonably, is "cyberbullying"? Your post could have just stopped at "shut the fuck up". Because that's the essential gist of everything that followed.

I believe he was referring to the top voted post from 4 months ago. We, as a community, did not come around for one of us, instead some of you bashed the guy when he was down, now he's dead. Shame. Edit: ameliorated ending

>>some of you bashed the guy when he was down, now he's dead. Shame.

Also, fuck you.>>

I resent the last two words but it couldn't have been anything else or anything better.

Yes, you cognoscenti, you know everything and you are talking about everything. It's not just that people bashed him when he was down; they are doing the same thing they do good on HN - comment on anything, disagree with everything and then stick around to prove why you were right and that you were right even though what you said was bs and full of crap.

Who knows, Aaron might have read such comments and that could have added to his hopelessness, or maybe he didn't. No, of course not such a commenter was guilty of aiding his suicide(neither legally or just generally), but then again just look at you.

I mean, really? I come across such commenters with five figure karmas on HN. They sometimes put across a counter-argument because that is technically correct and hence disregard what was said originally and on other occasions they put it because they are practically correct and disregard other's statement anyway. It's always that "oh, I am one notch up now". And yes, everybody loves them - they are the pillars of truth on HN. They never own up to what they did or say, they just go on around arguing and arguing and arguing. They take care of their own and jump in when one of their elk needs some assistance. Very few ever dares(or maybe bothers) to cross them. They are simply correct by definition and design. The elders, maybe. What would I know, I am not one of them. But that's just fine, isn't it?

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

#392

Post by larrys »

wissler wrote: post #378
larrys wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What am I missing here? Did Ed know Aaron and tell him this publicly? Or are you simply saying the act of making the original post on HN amounts to taking away moral support and consequently Ed bears some responsibility? If so (and please correct me if that's not what you are saying) then I don't agree with that. What you are implying is that people can't speak their mind in a public forum about how they feel about s…

I'm saying that IF you believe Ed's initial post was unjust, then you believe he's responsible for an unjust -- i.e. immoral -- action. And if you believe that his statement possibly led to removing moral (and financial!) sanction from Aaron, then you're going to have to hold him responsible for that too. The argument that he could have had the foresight to not do what he did is a separate matter.

"IF you believe Ed's initial post was unjust, then you believe he's responsible for an unjust"

I think I understand but to be clear you are saying that because he is a top commenter, and can change the opinions of others, on HN he needs to be especially careful and restrict what he says?

(For the record I don't have a problem with what he wrote as I read it.)

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

#393

Post by MrScruff »

fermule wrote: post #366
edw519 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may or may not have something to say about this, but not here, and not now. Can we please just let the family grieve? We are the family.

How about saying your sorry. Someone was asking for help and mr. edw519, just spit in his face with such absurd comments. Lets take a step back. Would you spit in the face of someone asking for help. What type of patronizing comments did edw519 make? He still hasn't said sorry and that tells me all I need to know about him and his ego. Shame on the members that supported edw519

I say shame on all the people creating throwaway accounts to sling mud around.

'Let's take a step back.'

Techcrunch publish an article singling out a single negative post (among many more) on HN from 120 days ago, and suddenly the pitchfork brigade are screaming for an apology within the hour. No need to worry about the bullying prosecutor any more officer, we've found the man!

Because clearly none of these people have ever said anything rash on the internet. What sanctimonious rubbish.

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

#394

Post by fermule »

baak wrote: post #276
django34211 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your logic makes no sense. Geez, I didn't know I just as capable of hurting people. I learned some new on HN. Of course even the dumbest person in the world know this. What matters is that those comments were hurting someone who was only looking for help. There is a big difference between someone who responds to comments and someone who attacking someone's call for help. "Do you know if the person you just blamed and…

No. The difference between your comment and his is hindsight. Well, that and that his comment had some thought behind it. You are just as nasty with your commments and have absolutely no shame because you're anonymous.

You don't get it.

It is rude to say such things when some is asking for help.

Use your brain and think about it for one second.

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

#395

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

dyno12345 wrote: post #239
nostrademons wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely certain that Aaron knew he was doing something wrong, or, for that matter, whether he was in fact doing something wrong. It seems he made little effort to cover his tracks and pretty much acted out in the open. And from what I've heard from friends who've met him in person - Aaron was brilliant, idealistic, a nice guy, and hopelessly naive about how the world actually works.

If he didn't think he was doing anything wrong, why didn't he just ask permission?

Is it wrong to jaywalk? Assuming you'd say yes then, if one jaywalks across the street to pick up the cure for cancer and subsequently disseminates said cure, would you persecute him for jaywalking? Because jaywalking seems like a pretty good analogy to Swartz's causing a short disruption of the Jstor service, and it wouldn't surprise me if the open publication of all scientific knowledge had the direct result of curing cancer, or the equivalent, many times over.

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

#396

Post by thosegivenmuch »

andrewfelix wrote: post #267
thaumaturgy wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Do we know Ed doesn't suffer from depression? The hypocrisy of the TC article is disgusting. They're recklessly throwing stones at people who may be in delicate positions themselves. As far as I can tell the TC article was designed to elicit an emotional reaction without any consideration given to human cost. TC needs to do the naval gazing here.

Whats the human cost here? Really? Because I can tell you that the human cost for someone else was suicide. Ed is not Aarons "family". Members of this website are not Aarons "family", Aarons biological family is his "family". A leading member of this site got caught being an ass, about a beautiful dedicated human being and now everyone wants to jump to his defense. Well, the human cost has been paid already, not by Ed, not by anyone commenting here, but by the person who was willing to engage in civil disobedience to make this world a better place. TC may be a schlock factory, but they nailed this one, and noone but Ed and the people defending him are to blame.

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

#397

Post by davorak »

Permit wrote: post #335
pygy_ wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Push anyone far enough and they'll take their own life. The threshold varies from one person to the next, but blaming his suicide on mental illness is IMO disingenuous. Which causes deserve funding is a matter of personal choice.

>Push anyone far enough and they'll take their own life. This is ridiculous hindsight bias, people have been charged with far more than Aaron and didn't kill themselves. Aaron had been depressed for a long time leading up to all of this, yet everyone seems to argue that the prosecution is what did it and he would have been completely fine otherwise. They have nothing to base that off of, but that's still the case tha…

It is more a statement of probabilities, do I know thats what pushed him of the edge of course not, is likely to have played a significant role, I think yes. It does not have to be all or nothing to change my opinion and my future actions.

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

#398

Post by fermule »

fermule wrote: post #366
edw519 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may or may not have something to say about this, but not here, and not now. Can we please just let the family grieve? We are the family.

How about saying your sorry. Someone was asking for help and mr. edw519, just spit in his face with such absurd comments. Lets take a step back. Would you spit in the face of someone asking for help. What type of patronizing comments did edw519 make? He still hasn't said sorry and that tells me all I need to know about him and his ego. Shame on the members that supported edw519

@MrScruff

Are you defending his comments? Yes the Prosecution was wrong, but does it negate what Ed said.

If you are defending his comments. What a sad sad action.

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

#399

Post by sethbc »

edw519 wrote: post #260
[deleted] wrote: post #104

[deleted]

I may or may not have something to say about this, but not here, and not now. Can we please just let the family grieve? We are the family.

I never post and I never comment, but I had to login to say something.

HN needs to "man up" and accept that the majority of the attitudes in the original post are exactly why things ended the way they did. People bitching about the styling of payment buttons? Telling someone to "man up" or exclaiming (with plenty of IANAL disclaimers) that no one would get jail time for something like this is typical for your average HN discussion thread. This thread (and the subject of this thread) is exactly what I've come to expect from HN - a bunch of (mostly) know-it-all hyper-competitive hyper-critical 20-something assholes trying to backstab or one-up each other to the top.

And Ed, "Not here, and not now" is such a cop-out I'm not even sure how to react to it. Own your shit.

Edit: Said differently, with friends (or family) like these, who needs enemies.

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

#400

Post by analog »

mpyne wrote: post #363
cstejerean wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it odd that everyone here is pointing fingers at edw519 for his 1 comment on that thread, when there were several comments from tptacek that I think did far more to sway public opinion at the time. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529706 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529716 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529781 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529799 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=452…

:quote: In the abstract he had very valid points, but in the context of that specific thread I think he did a pretty effective job at convincing people that * Aaron did something wrong * JSTOR backing out doesn't really mean anything * the prosecution is justified in trying to make an example of him * Aaron probably won't serve serious time, this is just a scare tactic :/quote: All but one of those are correct though…

I don't see any of those as being correct tbh.

Wrong - morally not, legally maybe. JSTOR backing out - MIT didn't back out. An example is justified - absolutely not, given that the act is not morally wrong. Aaron won't serve serious time - well, we're seeing the time he's serving now. He's lost his life and he isn't the first under these circumstances.

Post reply on HN