Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Where Sci-Hub Is

whereisscihub.now.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 185 posts

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#61

Post by unityByFreedom »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #55
unityByFreedom wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody here suggested creators shouldn't be compensated. Sure they did, they said knowledge should be free. If it is funded, someone's got to pay for it, and that is by definition not free. If it is the government who funds it, you're paying for it through tax dollars. And, you're not paying a competitive rate, which means low quality information is coming out. edit: I'm done with this comment chain of people claim…

You're mixing up free of cost with free as in liberty. Information freedom is about liberating access to information not demonitizing creators. In the context of freedom of information the opposite of free information is not funded information- it's censored, withheld, horded, etc.

The market withholds food when they tell you to pay first before taking it home. The same is fair for an author.

You don't need to fear paywalls. You're capable of learning and creating the same knowledge as any other person.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#63

Post by MacsHeadroom »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #59
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're conflating free as in beer with free as in liberty. "Information should be free" means that it shouldn't be caged away- it means free as in liberty. Funded information can be liberated. Shareware is free. Donationware is free. Crowdfunded creative works are often free. Creation of valuable information is effectively infinitely more expensive than copying valuable information. It's not unreasonable to consider…

> You're conflating free as in beer with free as in liberty. "Information should be free" means that it shouldn't be caged away- it means free as in liberty. Sorry, no. What you're describing is "easily accessible". The comment above wrote "knowledge should be free and easily accessible". > Creation of valuable information is effectively infinitely more expensive than copying valuable information. It's not unreasonab…

I don't know what to tell you. You're just plain wrong.

Having the freedom to access information and information be8mg easily accessible are two different things. Those are the two things the above commenter was advocating for.

Should accessing information be free of cost? Of course, yes, as much as possible it should. That's why we have libraries.

Should creating information be free of cost? Of course not, that's just nonsense and the fact that you thought anyone would suggest that is rather telling.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#64

Post by unityByFreedom »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #58
unityByFreedom wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All knowledge should not be free. The comment above mine wrote knowledge should be free and easily accessible . They are talking about all knowledge, not just academic journals, and that makes no sense.

It does make sense. You're just misreading what they said. They did not say information should be unfunded or creators demonitized. They said information should be "free" as in liberated, as in freedom. Valuable information is virtually costless to copy and yet you can be locked away in a cage by men with guns for accessing it. It's not far off from how North Korea handles people found with Western media. That's what…

Please don't reply to every one of my comments with the same points, you are spamming.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#66

Post by MacsHeadroom »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #61
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're mixing up free of cost with free as in liberty. Information freedom is about liberating access to information not demonitizing creators. In the context of freedom of information the opposite of free information is not funded information- it's censored, withheld, horded, etc.

The market withholds food when they tell you to pay first before taking it home. The same is fair for an author. You don't need to fear paywalls. You're capable of learning and creating the same knowledge as any other person.

I don't fear paywalls. I create, fund, and advocate for circumvention tools because withholding something of value that is instantly copyable and virtually free to share is morally abhorrent.

It's your right to withhold information just as it would be your right to withhold water if you had the only well in town. Likewise it's my right to use information to liberate withheld information just as it would be my right to provide well digging tools to your parched neighbors.

The only difference is that I'm thinking of what is best for everyone and you're thinking only of yourself. That's your right; take the low road if it makes you happy.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#67

Post by shuhari »

xvilka wrote: post #12
p0llard wrote: post #7

The sooner academic publishers die the better—not a very original thought, I'm aware. There's still very much a distinction between (self-)publishing on the arXiv and publishing in a 'real' journal/conference within the academic community, and I think it comes down to two factors: 1. The arXiv moderation process has a much lower bar; you see some pretty rubbish papers (often from large tech companies) make their way…

Just an arXiv with peer-review is not enough. There is a lot of room for innovation and improvement. There was quite an interesting discussion[1] about creating something in between Overleaf[2], ArXiv[3], Git, and Wikipedia, moreover with the ability to do a peer-to-peer review, discussion, and social networking. Check out the last[4] article in that series. There are a few implementations, albeit not covering all fe…

I will probably create a Show HN thread very soon to officially announce it, but I am creating a startup that aims to cover these areas.

Essentially it's 'Reddit + Patreon for research'.

http://asone.ai/

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#69

Post by MacsHeadroom »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #64
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does make sense. You're just misreading what they said. They did not say information should be unfunded or creators demonitized. They said information should be "free" as in liberated, as in freedom. Valuable information is virtually costless to copy and yet you can be locked away in a cage by men with guns for accessing it. It's not far off from how North Korea handles people found with Western media. That's what…

Please don't reply to every one of my comments with the same points, you are spamming.

I'm simply countering disinformation spam with correct information.

Have a moment of self awareness for one second and consider this: if I had to make the same rebuttal multiple times to counter act the same argument then who is the spammer and who is just setting the record straight? Hmmmm

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#70

Post by terminaljunkid »

swiley wrote: post #11

I think in software you don't appreciate how important papers are compared to other subjects like chemistry. I wonder if they had hobbyists in mind when they built that site.

In software, many times new things come out of industry, and conference papers are (IMO) equally prevalent as journal papers.
Post reply on HN