The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

I'm curious how it's a whitewash of government bullies when that's not the point of the article? It's pretty clear at the start that it's about how his friends and family perceived him, and his backstory - I was aware of the overall narrative, but found it extremely interesting to hear stories of his challenges with interacting with the world.

In general, I respect and appreciate content that takes someone who has been lionized (especially posthumously) and humanizes them. People are complicated, the narrative is rarely as simple as it's distilled down for public consumption.

As far as the "squarely in the corner of intelligence agences and law enforcement" - that wasn't my impression, and while I did not spend hours researching, I went through the "police" tag on the new yorker website, and in the last year, 10 out of 21 articles were overtly critical of police, and only ~2 could be considered positive towards police. The remainder were either neutral, nuanced, or orthogonal (e.g. photo essays about a woman who was embedded with the police for several years). Do you have evidence to back up your assertion?

This is such an insightful observation. I think to the critical thinker its clear capitalism doesn't allow dissent past a certain point. Sure, you can be an altruist in small way that don't threaten the status quo like giving to charity or volunteering, but when you go against the under-pinnings of our system, namely intellectual property laws, then you're going to be defeated. We also saw this with Lawrence Lessig who is now an entirely unknown person but before was a Kardashian-level celeb on the internet due to his criticisms of copyright and patents.

So there's no place for a smart and motivated altruist in capitalism, because capitalism's oppression is what this person will fight and capitalism is usually the better fighter.

Smart altruists do become evil to be successful because of this, think of how many left-leaning idealistic early silicon valley types and their ethos was entirely shed to become, functionally, the same as any MBA or Chicago school economist and now, not capitalism's critic, but its driver and the wielder of the hammer that crushes people like Swartz or Lessig. Let's remember Steve Jobs, who is beloved and seen bizarrely as a "hippie" threatened Blackberry with his questionable patent portfolio over email because of "poaching." Poaching in this context being people leave jobs for better ones, but Steve felt a feudal-like ownership of his workers and used the corrupt mechanisms of capitalism to control them and suppress wages.

I'm sure there are other examples, but 'hippie turned ruthless capitalist' is pretty much the story of the boomer generation, who quickly figured out that they can get defeated by the system on some level, or they themselves become the oppressors. They chose to become the oppressors. The same is true of millennial idealism when its thrown out the window when you have an IPO looming, Facebook being the most obvious millennial led company that is about as evil as you can be for a webpage and app.

The problem with right-leaning entrepreneurship spaces like HN is that there's no class consciousness and no real capitalism critiques. So Swatz was killed by the "government" not the capitalism that government serves. Or like this article says he was a depressed immature weirdo, so this was unavoidable. Neither of that is true. He became a valid threat to capitalism and the hammer fell on him. If not via this prosecutor (who enforces laws written by the oligarchy) then by something else (see Jobs using civil suits as a defacto government himself). He could have been sued for damages for all the PDFs he "stole," for example, if the wealthy couldn't wield the DOJ to their liking.

I can't think of any high profile idealists, IP critics, or capitalist critics in online spaces today. The system took down Lessig, Swatz, Doctorow, etc pretty easily. Swatz, of course is dead, but the others are now marginalized characters no one cares about and copyright and patent reform an entirely dead political horse. Instead the pendulum has shifted to an outright worship of billionaires, to the point of putting one in the presidency and filling the cabinet with them, on top of questionable Elon and Bezos worship, which seemingly gets stronger by the day.

No one seems to talk about this, but the late 90s and early 2000's financial and IP idealism was entirely crushed by the system. Today's smart altruists saw this and I imagine they are going to pick the Steve Jobs path, not the Swartz path going forward. They don't want to get destroyed either.

Source: someone who is older and witnessed all this in real time and is heartbroken over how everything turned out

What statement? You mean they could have been lying about the plea deal?

Blind to what? You just stated “white boys”. So you agree justice isn’t blind. Then bringing up a rich, famous, American icon celebrity and how they were handled does not make sense.

Edit: as sibling post says. The rest of the comment is equivalent to fan fiction.

> Says the judge when you admit to what you did and plead. He’s the same one that gave Lori Laughlin and Mossimo 6 months in minimum security “camp” and not the bazillion years the prosecutor originally threatened.

The prosecutor was trying to railroad Aaron for political gain and used every shenanigan in his bag of tricks to leverage Aaron into confessing -er- agreeing to a plea bargain. It was wrong, and very much revisionist to say otherwise.