Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can unflag it if you want to.
[deleted]
Because it doesn't violate any of the HN guidelines and is pretty clearly of interest to HN readers?
Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
31–40 of 530 posts
Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#32Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can unflag it if you want to.
[deleted]
> Why would I want to?
Because you're flagging something for all the wrong reasons. You're assuming that this was submitted by someone just for pageviews but I see no evidence of that. TC articles hit HN with some regularity, sometimes within seconds of being posted there. Also, there is such a thing as the bookmarklet which makes such submissions as easy as clicking two buttons. Anything on TC mentioning Aaron Swartz is pretty much guaranteed to be submitted, and only the very first of those upvotes was the submitter. The 50+ following it were others and your 'flag' counts as heavy as 10 upvotes. So you're hitting 9 people for all the wrong reasons.
Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#34Here is the HN thread from back then. Some of it makes for pretty uncomfortable reading right now. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529484
Something particularly bugs me about edw519's comments in the thread you linked to and the recent one about the tragedy -- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5047571 . It's an odd contrast.
Let's remember the original comment is the top one because it was voted so by the community.
Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#35So this is on the OP, which quotes the Lessig post:
> For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million dollar trial in April — his wealth bled dry, yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge.
I never understood this assertion. Under what procedural grounds would a judge punish someone raising funds for their defense? Or is referring to more of a "the judge will be annoyed at you" kind of sanction?
Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#36It seems significant to me. There are a lot of users on HN whose default move is to criticize whatever story just made the main page. Maybe that's not the best default position.
Here's a long discussion thread from mid-2012 sort of on that subject: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4396747
Paul Graham also mentioned somewhere that he's been collecting examples of "middlebrow dismissal" as a common kind of default response, in an attempt to understand/combat the phenomenon.
Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
> Why would I want to? Because you're flagging something for all the wrong reasons. You're assuming that this was submitted by someone just for pageviews but I see no evidence of that. TC articles hit HN with some regularity, sometimes within seconds of being posted there. Also, there is such a thing as the bookmarklet which makes such submissions as easy as clicking two buttons. Anything on TC mentioning Aaron Swart…
[deleted]
Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#38Here is the HN thread from back then. Some of it makes for pretty uncomfortable reading right now. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529484
Ouch, some heavy-weight posters there that would probably like to rephrase their opinions in light of current events.
I don't know that they would, or that they should. Aaron's actions were not a matter of some simple black & white reasoning. Some of the comments come across as harsh criticism for someone who has recently passed, but these were comments before he passed. The context cannot be separated from the content in this case.
I hold a lot of the same views as Aaron. This is especially true in the case of the PACER incident, which is speculated to have been a source of the malice on display from the Justice Department, but I also recognize that a lot of the reasoning presented by edw519 and tptacek (just a couple of examples) is sound. It's entirely possible for there to be sound arguments on both sides of a discussion.
Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would I want to? Because you're flagging something for all the wrong reasons. You're assuming that this was submitted by someone just for pageviews but I see no evidence of that. TC articles hit HN with some regularity, sometimes within seconds of being posted there. Also, there is such a thing as the bookmarklet which makes such submissions as easy as clicking two buttons. Anything on TC mentioning Aaron Swart…
[deleted]
I don't think anybody is 'winning' here, especially not in the light of the last few days. You asked for arguments, I gave you some, if they're not good enough then that's fine with me.
Those that downvote this man, please stop, it serves no purpose.
Re: Aaron Swartz, Asking For Help, 119 Days Ago
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something particularly bugs me about edw519's comments in the thread you linked to and the recent one about the tragedy -- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5047571 . It's an odd contrast.
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.
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.