The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz
washingtonpost.com
The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz
1–10 of 39 posts
Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz
#2MIT dropped the ball here but the prosecutor sounds absolutely evil by comparison and seems to have heavily influenced MIT's position of neutrality.
Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz
#3This article really needs more evidence supporting its views. Just restating the claims of the report isn't enough. For example, the third claim is that MIT claims no one cared until aaronsw's suicide. Citing protests by students, open letters by faculty, or articles by alumni would sufficiently refute the report, which is DH5^1. As it stands, this article is just contradicting, which is DH3, and much less convincing.
Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz
#4MIT dropped the ball here but the prosecutor sounds absolutely evil by comparison and seems to have heavily influenced MIT's position of neutrality.
It doesn't sound like MIT was really neutral.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit...
"Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not.
'There were subsets of the MIT community who were profoundly in support of Aaron,' Weinberg said. That support did not override institutional interests."
Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz
#5This article really needs more evidence supporting its views. Just restating the claims of the report isn't enough. For example, the third claim is that MIT claims no one cared until aaronsw's suicide. Citing protests by students, open letters by faculty, or articles by alumni would sufficiently refute the report, which is DH5^1. As it stands, this article is just contradicting, which is DH3, and much less convincing…
I don't think they are even doing a DH3; they aren't claiming that MIT is lying. I think it is rather: "Here are excuses offered up by MIT for its behavior, even assuming they are true, it's lame"
Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz
#6This article really needs more evidence supporting its views. Just restating the claims of the report isn't enough. For example, the third claim is that MIT claims no one cared until aaronsw's suicide. Citing protests by students, open letters by faculty, or articles by alumni would sufficiently refute the report, which is DH5^1. As it stands, this article is just contradicting, which is DH3, and much less convincing…
That would be true if we were all uneducated about the issue, but that fact nearly everyone can agree that those claims are ridiculous means adding piles of proof would only bloat the article.
For example, what would you have them refute of this statement? "Prosecutors said that Swartz bringing MIT personnel into hearings and trials was like re-victimizing a rape survivor."
Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz
#7MIT dropped the ball here but the prosecutor sounds absolutely evil by comparison and seems to have heavily influenced MIT's position of neutrality.
It doesn't sound like MIT was really neutral. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit... "Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not. 'There were subsets of the MIT community who were profoundly in support of Aaron,' Weinberg said. That support did not overri…
Not signing off on the plea bargain is precisely the definition of remaining neutral: not influencing the proceedings.
Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't sound like MIT was really neutral. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit... "Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not. 'There were subsets of the MIT community who were profoundly in support of Aaron,' Weinberg said. That support did not overri…
Not signing off on the plea bargain is precisely the definition of remaining neutral: not influencing the proceedings.
Putting him behind bars for downloading bits is ludicrous, and history will look back on us as living in some sort of dark ages.
Just had to get that out of my system.
Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't sound like MIT was really neutral. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit... "Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not. 'There were subsets of the MIT community who were profoundly in support of Aaron,' Weinberg said. That support did not overri…
Not signing off on the plea bargain is precisely the definition of remaining neutral: not influencing the proceedings.
First you shouldn't have to hide under a new throw away account.
Second, since MIT initiated the proceedings I wouldn't call that neutral either.
Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not signing off on the plea bargain is precisely the definition of remaining neutral: not influencing the proceedings.
First you shouldn't have to hide under a new throw away account. Second, since MIT initiated the proceedings I wouldn't call that neutral either.
Given the level of adjectives and expletives that I have seen being used for anyone who has made even the slightest of remarks that don't aligned perfectly with the popular stand here, I can understand uhno's stance of saying stuff from a new account. And yes, it doesn't seem that MIT was neutral on this case. But I guess dropping the case wouldn't have been a neutral stance either.