Perhaps Jeff Atwood Should Stick to the Code • Hacker News Board

Re: Perhaps Jeff Atwood Should Stick to the Code

#31

Post by supervacuo » Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 9:15 PM UTC

Zimahl wrote: post #30

supervacuo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your first sentence perfectly illustrates my point: > There are laws which may or may not be levied against us in certain situations. Evidence (including Swartz's case) strongly suggests that this discretion leads to an unjust result. It's obvious that not every legal action is socially desirable (or "moral", for the sake of brevity) and not every illegal action is immoral (whistleblowers, protestors, etc.).…

You can pick and choose any number of 'wrongful' or 'unjust' litigation. There's a ton. HSBC is irrelevant to Swartz. It's obvious that not every legal action is socially desirable (or "moral", for the sake of brevity) and not every illegal action is immoral (whistleblowers, protestors, etc.). Irrelevant. Social desire and morality has nothing to do with it. BTW, those are very subjective. I do feel that Swartz shoul…

> Sure, but we shouldn't be outraged over Swartz being prosecuted.

WTH not? It was pretty outrageous. I'd be interested to hear your argument that he deserved even 6 months in prison for copyright violation.

> If a crime is not reported it can't be followed up on by law enforcement.

... which is not to say that if a crime is reported, it will be followed up by law enforcement. Many reported crimes are not acted upon at all; some of them get a huge overreaction (like Swartz's) and some get an under-reaction (like HSBC).

That's the link: that justice is only just if the rules are the same for everyone, and they clearly are not.

Re: Perhaps Jeff Atwood Should Stick to the Code

#32

Post by Zimahl » Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 9:55 PM UTC

supervacuo wrote: post #31

Zimahl wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can pick and choose any number of 'wrongful' or 'unjust' litigation. There's a ton. HSBC is irrelevant to Swartz. It's obvious that not every legal action is socially desirable (or "moral", for the sake of brevity) and not every illegal action is immoral (whistleblowers, protestors, etc.). Irrelevant. Social desire and morality has nothing to do with it. BTW, those are very subjective. I do feel that Swartz shoul…

> Sure, but we shouldn't be outraged over Swartz being prosecuted. WTH not? It was pretty outrageous. I'd be interested to hear your argument that he deserved even 6 months in prison for copyright violation. > If a crime is not reported it can't be followed up on by law enforcement. ... which is not to say that if a crime is reported, it will be followed up by law enforcement. Many reported crimes are not acted upon…

WTH not? It was pretty outrageous. I'd be interested to hear your argument that he deserved even 6 months in prison for copyright violation.

Outrageous to whom? You?

I feel the punishment doesn't fit the crime, however, that's the punishment. I wouldn't want that punishment so I do not steal copyrighted material. That's Atwood's point in it's entirety: Swartz knew there were strict penalties and wasn't willing to accept the consequences if caught.

... which is not to say that if a crime is reported, it will be followed up by law enforcement.

This depends on a lot of factors and you know that. But there isn't some Illuminati deciding whether every case is important enough to prosecute.

That's the link: that justice is only just if the rules are the same for everyone, and they clearly are not.

Prosecutors prosecute what they think they can win. Swartz was a win for obvious reasons, HSBC wasn't for reasons unbeknownst to me. Our system is what it is. If you can't accept losing, don't play ball.

Re: Perhaps Jeff Atwood Should Stick to the Code

#33

Post by VikingCoder » Wed, Feb 27, 2013, 10:30 PM UTC

supervacuo wrote: post #27

VikingCoder wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So respectfully empathize with him, and point out your differences about activism. Telling him to "stick to coding" makes you an insensitive clod, and sends a dangerous message to others with suicidal thoughts that their feelings are not welcome.

> So respectfully empathize with him, and point out your differences about activism. There's no moral problem with being slightly irreverent to someone in such a strong position: Atwood is apparently financially successful and has a large readership. He is also — unlike the target of his own criticism — alive. So maybe your concern is strategic. I happen to think "respectful empathy" would have been a worse way of ma…

> being slightly irreverent to someone in such a strong position

You're also telling everyone who happens to agree with Atwood to shut up. And they don't all have the same strong position.

You're not WRITING AN EMAIL TO ATWOOD, you're broadcasting to the world that everyone who agrees with him is wrong. And you're doing it disrespectfully.

> (hence why I didn't mention that aspect of Atwood's post at all).

Don't you think, given the topic, that you should have specifically mentioned that category of people, and shown empathy? Perhaps starting with Atwood, and generalizing from there?

Fuck it - you don't care what I think, and you're casual about telling people to shut up, so my efforts are completely pointless.