7 ms·

I have never understood the raising up of Aaron Swartz to demi-god status by this community. It is tragic that he took his own life and I fully expect to be dow

by pieter1976 10y ago

I have never understood the raising up of Aaron Swartz to demi-god status by this community. It is tragic that he took his own life and I fully expect to be downvoted here for expressing this opinion as it is a thing you can't say here (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html).

Hermel 10y ago
You can't deny that he took a persomal risk for the greater good, namely the free dissemination of public knowledge. And that's basically the definition of heroic.
- keymone 10y ago
  who's denying he took the risk?
- raverbashing 10y ago
  Sci-Hub did a better job of making knowledge available What he did was inconsequential and then he preferred to quit rather than face the consequences (to which he would probably get support from the whole internet) A.S. looks like more than a prankster who never got told that actions have consequences and an idealist that was too naive for his own good.
  - cooper12 10y ago
    Saying that he merely "quit", like he just walked out of the room or something, extremely trivializes depression and suicide. Also, the consequences in this case were disproportionate to the crime, with JSTOR listing inflated damages, and the prosecutor wanting to make an examples of him. Lastly your whole comment is framed as a personal attack. You say "inconsequential" even though we have no clue what he was planning to do since he was made to delete the files, and you say "prankster" like was just trolling MIT and JSTOR. I recommend instead that you instead try to read a little about him, he accomplished much more then you gave him credit for.
    - raverbashing 10y ago
      > Saying that he merely "quit", like he just walked out of the room or something, extremely trivializes depression and suicide True, I had considered this angle but I ended up not adding it to the comment. But I recognize the importance of those factors > the consequences in this case were disproportionate to the crime, with JSTOR listing inflated damages No contest on the inflated damages, which is part of most legal cases unfortunately, but he could have gotten the best lawyers to this case. > even though we have no clue what he was planning to do Scraping files is an action on itself that gives several suggestions on what he was going to do with them. > and you say "prankster" like was just trolling MIT and JSTOR Well he was at least doing that.
      - cooper12 10y ago
        I'm assuming you're thinking is that he was going to distribute them. While his Guerilla Open Access Manifesto [0] might support that, it's just one possibility. Or he might have analyzed the papers for personal research, as he did in the past: > A few years ago, he downloaded a significant portion of the articles on the Westlaw legal-research database in order to analyze their sources of funding, in the hope of determining whether economic interests affected their conclusions. He gave the data to a Stanford law student, and she published an article in the Stanford Law Review based on his findings. [1] [0]: https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamj... [1]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/03/11/requiem-for-a-dream http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/03/11/requiem-for-a-d...
    - aptwebapps 10y ago
      I thought JSTOR didn't want to press charges once the data was deleted? I believe they were firmer about that than MIT which took a somewhat hands-off approach.
      - cooper12 10y ago
        Yeah you're correct on both accounts. However the prosecutor in the case still wanted to charge him and it wasn't their decision to make.
- tjansen 10y ago
  No one here doubts that he was well-meaning and good at heart. He was just very young, extremely naive, and seemingly incapable of seeing what he did from another perspective, which lead to the whole tragedy. I would call the whole thing a cautionary tale.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    The tragedy was not caused by what you call his inability to see other perspectives. Monocausal explanations are usually wrong, and yours is no exception. Vindictive prosecution played a big role, inaction by MIT played a big role, the unforgiving nature of the plea-bargain justice system played a big role too, just to mention three causal factors. To dismiss the entire catastrophe as a "cautionary tale" is heartless. People who stand up to the powers that be know damn well that it is likely they'll have to suffer the consequences. Aaron was fully aware of this, despite your claims of his naivety. This is a cautionary tale only if the lesson to be learned is: never stand up to power. For shame.
    - tjansen 10y ago
      I think 'standing up to power' is something that is justified under extreme circumstances, but we're talking about copyright laws in a democracy here, not about saving people's life in a dictatorship. You may not like the existing copyright laws or the justice system. And I fully understand it, as I don't like parts of them either. But that doesn't give you the right to break the law. A society where people break laws just because they disagree with them simply can't work.
      - gizmo 10y ago
        Civil disobedience is a critical part of a functioning democracy. Defying unjust laws raises awareness of how unjust they are, and if the public is persuaded that the law is wrong then sometimes the laws will end up getting overturned. In the worst case the conscientious objector ends up getting crushed by the system. So when activists break laws they don't do so willy-nilly, because the stakes are so high. Your claim that laws must always be obeyed in a democracy is gross. Are enslaved people supposed to follow the laws in a democracy that say they cannot fight for their freedom? Are we to condemn black people who organized sit-ins to protest apartheid? Are you not aware that practically all rights we enjoy today are the result of activists who risked their life to fight for these rights? Think for a second about the implications of blind obedience to the law, and the ugly historical record thereof!
lazzlazzlazz 10y ago
I agree. His story is tragic, but why was he considered so profoundly enlightened? I have read almost everything published about him and failed to be grasped in the same way.
grzm 10y ago
You're much more likely to get downvoted for expressing that you expect to be downvoted. It shows lack of faith in the community you're participating in. If you believe what you're saying and express it in the most civil way you can, please do just that.
- rimantas 10y ago
  While your first statement is true what has faith in the community has to do with it? Maybe OP just knows this community and that is enough reason not to "have faith" in it?
  - grzm 10y ago
    From what I've observed, the HN community values civil and substantive discussion. This relies, in part, on assuming good faith on behalf of the participants. Expressing that you believe that others won't evaluate comments fairly degrades this good faith.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    It's an intellectual cop out. If you think you will be down voted, you should consider how you can rephrase what you're saying so you aren't. I'm not saying to change what you say, just how you say it. "I'm going to get down voted for saying this" is the HN equivalent "I don't mean to be a jerk, but [says jerk things]".
    - bshimmin 10y ago
      I think at least part of the problem with saying that you expect to get downvoted is the inevitable meta-discussion that follows, with people citing the guidelines (wherein you will find the word "bait" to describe this, which to me seems unfair in many instances) and then others arguing the toss for the hundredth time. Just to be a complete hypocrite: I personally don't think it's unreasonable to express a likely contrarian viewpoint and apologise in advance for that - but hey, I'm British, and some of us were brought up to be polite.
scrollaway 10y ago
He was young, showed great promise, was clearly ahead of his age, everybody who knew him found him to be a genuinely nice and caring person... Is it really that surprising that people are genuinely upset he took his own life after being harassed by the US government? This is a community that tends to dislike extreme prosecution, copyright laws and generally agrees with Aaron's ideology. And on another note: Can HN not care about a guy without people saying we're "raising him to demi-god status"? With how often that accusation is thrown around, you'd think we have enough to sell our demi-god surplus to cults in need of more. PS: The "I'll be downvoted for my contrarian idea but ..." stuff is for reddit, not here, tbh.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Ntrails 10y ago
  >everybody who knew him found him to be a genuinely nice and caring person... Whilst that may be true, I've not read about a lot of tragic deaths where everyone who knew the person thought they were a prick. The point being raised is "Do we really think his theories had unusual insight/value or is his work being viewed through the lens of his death being tragic?". It seems like an entirely valid question to ask. In terms of "the joker being a rational actor who achieved his goals". Well personally I think he's misinterpreted the film/characters, but I know i'm not an expert on such things so the most I can say is that I'll take his view with a pretty chunky pinch of salt.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- mapmeld 10y ago
  I found it frustrating that famous technologists and thought-leaders had stories and praises for him after he died, which were not seen while he was alive, fighting prosecution, and needing their support. From an archived Wikipedia page, you see few statements of support: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Swartz&oldid=524496002 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Swartz&oldi... Aaron was private about his difficulties with the case, but it was not at all a secret... I think many people -especially those with influence in the open data space- were aware of it and doing nothing.
speaktruth 10y ago
The difficult but necessary thing is to describe his real public influence and legacy without hurting those close to him. His ideas had always much less weight then his persona that was created by others and to some degree by him. There is no reason to judge him for that, because we all strive for significance and nobody is perfect. But I agree we should stop to further support that bumptious memory of him. In the end, he was also a victim of dynamics that where not in his influence. There was people who wanted to make an example of him, because he (like many others) wanted to set information free. I liked him because he was good looking in a JFK kind of sense. His confident charisma was pleasant and comforting, his words never misplaced. I miss him.
Eupolemos 10y ago
He is a symbol. Every time he's mentioned, someone feel the overwhelming need to pop up and share their "unpopular but realistic opinion". I think that is embarrassing.
- pieter1976 10y ago
  And there is the problem. He is being treated as a symbol, rather than a fellow human being who walked the planet with the rest of us and had his own demons.
  - dagenleg 10y ago
    It's not like he cares, being dead and all.
    - cooper12 10y ago
      Tell that to his brother: https://medium.com/@swartzcr/people-call-me-aaron-3761481871e5 https://medium.com/@swartzcr/people-call-me-aaron-3761481871...
      - dagenleg 10y ago
        I don't see how is that relevant. Why should we care about his brother having an identity crisis? It's sad, but even the brother complains about being overshadowed by his dead brother, not about his brother being made into icon.
        cooper12 10y ago
        It's exactly because he's an icon that his brother is overshadowed by him.
  - Eupolemos 10y ago
    I don't see that as a problem - why do you? One does not detract from or rule out the other.
chmike 10y ago
He is estimated by many people for his multiple significant contributions that he started at a young age. He also made mistakes and a very big one (committing suicide). You say you don't understand why people estimate him. What's the point in saying that ? Who cares ? Are you asking the arguments justifying why people seam to estimate him so much ? Are you calling back into question the arguments justifying that he is estimated ? Them give us your arguments. That you don't understand that Aaron is estimated could have many explanations. You could be stupid. You could discard or ignore data points. Your "measuring stick" could be bogus or too subjective. Some people may glorify him as semi-god because they are themselves stupid or want to piggy bag their reputation with the one of Aaron. Or maybe Aaron was just an impostor as you might be inferring. My feeling is that "ignorance" is overrated these days. A comment that just say "I don't understand X" has very low pertinence value and, in my opinion, should not be upvoted on hacker news. Please reformulate the point you would like to make and present your arguments. Only arguments are really relevant. I downvoted you for the reasons above.
hx87 10y ago
I have never understood the use of "I fully expect to be downvoted" as a form of virtue signalling.
- lgas 10y ago
  Ah see there's your problem, it's actually doofus-signalling.
jjtheblunt 10y ago
I totally agree with you: sad that he gave up on life, but what did _he_ really do? Sort of sit on the periphery of reddit? Complain and act entitled? The saddest thing is perhaps that folks 'worship'ing him contribute more than he did, day after day.

Hermel 10y ago

You can't deny that he took a persomal risk for the greater good, namely the free dissemination of public knowledge. And that's basically the definition of heroic.

keymone 10y ago
who's denying he took the risk?
raverbashing 10y ago
Sci-Hub did a better job of making knowledge available What he did was inconsequential and then he preferred to quit rather than face the consequences (to which he would probably get support from the whole internet) A.S. looks like more than a prankster who never got told that actions have consequences and an idealist that was too naive for his own good.
- cooper12 10y ago
  Saying that he merely "quit", like he just walked out of the room or something, extremely trivializes depression and suicide. Also, the consequences in this case were disproportionate to the crime, with JSTOR listing inflated damages, and the prosecutor wanting to make an examples of him. Lastly your whole comment is framed as a personal attack. You say "inconsequential" even though we have no clue what he was planning to do since he was made to delete the files, and you say "prankster" like was just trolling MIT and JSTOR. I recommend instead that you instead try to read a little about him, he accomplished much more then you gave him credit for.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    > Saying that he merely "quit", like he just walked out of the room or something, extremely trivializes depression and suicide True, I had considered this angle but I ended up not adding it to the comment. But I recognize the importance of those factors > the consequences in this case were disproportionate to the crime, with JSTOR listing inflated damages No contest on the inflated damages, which is part of most legal cases unfortunately, but he could have gotten the best lawyers to this case. > even though we have no clue what he was planning to do Scraping files is an action on itself that gives several suggestions on what he was going to do with them. > and you say "prankster" like was just trolling MIT and JSTOR Well he was at least doing that.
    - cooper12 10y ago
      I'm assuming you're thinking is that he was going to distribute them. While his Guerilla Open Access Manifesto [0] might support that, it's just one possibility. Or he might have analyzed the papers for personal research, as he did in the past: > A few years ago, he downloaded a significant portion of the articles on the Westlaw legal-research database in order to analyze their sources of funding, in the hope of determining whether economic interests affected their conclusions. He gave the data to a Stanford law student, and she published an article in the Stanford Law Review based on his findings. [1] [0]: https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamj... [1]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/03/11/requiem-for-a-dream http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/03/11/requiem-for-a-d...
  - aptwebapps 10y ago
    I thought JSTOR didn't want to press charges once the data was deleted? I believe they were firmer about that than MIT which took a somewhat hands-off approach.
    - cooper12 10y ago
      Yeah you're correct on both accounts. However the prosecutor in the case still wanted to charge him and it wasn't their decision to make.
tjansen 10y ago
No one here doubts that he was well-meaning and good at heart. He was just very young, extremely naive, and seemingly incapable of seeing what he did from another perspective, which lead to the whole tragedy. I would call the whole thing a cautionary tale.
- gizmo 10y ago
  The tragedy was not caused by what you call his inability to see other perspectives. Monocausal explanations are usually wrong, and yours is no exception. Vindictive prosecution played a big role, inaction by MIT played a big role, the unforgiving nature of the plea-bargain justice system played a big role too, just to mention three causal factors. To dismiss the entire catastrophe as a "cautionary tale" is heartless. People who stand up to the powers that be know damn well that it is likely they'll have to suffer the consequences. Aaron was fully aware of this, despite your claims of his naivety. This is a cautionary tale only if the lesson to be learned is: never stand up to power. For shame.
  - tjansen 10y ago
    I think 'standing up to power' is something that is justified under extreme circumstances, but we're talking about copyright laws in a democracy here, not about saving people's life in a dictatorship. You may not like the existing copyright laws or the justice system. And I fully understand it, as I don't like parts of them either. But that doesn't give you the right to break the law. A society where people break laws just because they disagree with them simply can't work.
    - gizmo 10y ago
      Civil disobedience is a critical part of a functioning democracy. Defying unjust laws raises awareness of how unjust they are, and if the public is persuaded that the law is wrong then sometimes the laws will end up getting overturned. In the worst case the conscientious objector ends up getting crushed by the system. So when activists break laws they don't do so willy-nilly, because the stakes are so high. Your claim that laws must always be obeyed in a democracy is gross. Are enslaved people supposed to follow the laws in a democracy that say they cannot fight for their freedom? Are we to condemn black people who organized sit-ins to protest apartheid? Are you not aware that practically all rights we enjoy today are the result of activists who risked their life to fight for these rights? Think for a second about the implications of blind obedience to the law, and the ugly historical record thereof!

lazzlazzlazz 10y ago

I agree. His story is tragic, but why was he considered so profoundly enlightened? I have read almost everything published about him and failed to be grasped in the same way.

grzm 10y ago

You're much more likely to get downvoted for expressing that you expect to be downvoted. It shows lack of faith in the community you're participating in. If you believe what you're saying and express it in the most civil way you can, please do just that.

rimantas 10y ago
While your first statement is true what has faith in the community has to do with it? Maybe OP just knows this community and that is enough reason not to "have faith" in it?
- grzm 10y ago
  From what I've observed, the HN community values civil and substantive discussion. This relies, in part, on assuming good faith on behalf of the participants. Expressing that you believe that others won't evaluate comments fairly degrades this good faith.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  It's an intellectual cop out. If you think you will be down voted, you should consider how you can rephrase what you're saying so you aren't. I'm not saying to change what you say, just how you say it. "I'm going to get down voted for saying this" is the HN equivalent "I don't mean to be a jerk, but [says jerk things]".
  - bshimmin 10y ago
    I think at least part of the problem with saying that you expect to get downvoted is the inevitable meta-discussion that follows, with people citing the guidelines (wherein you will find the word "bait" to describe this, which to me seems unfair in many instances) and then others arguing the toss for the hundredth time. Just to be a complete hypocrite: I personally don't think it's unreasonable to express a likely contrarian viewpoint and apologise in advance for that - but hey, I'm British, and some of us were brought up to be polite.

scrollaway 10y ago

He was young, showed great promise, was clearly ahead of his age, everybody who knew him found him to be a genuinely nice and caring person... Is it really that surprising that people are genuinely upset he took his own life after being harassed by the US government? This is a community that tends to dislike extreme prosecution, copyright laws and generally agrees with Aaron's ideology. And on another note: Can HN not care about a guy without people saying we're "raising him to demi-god status"? With how often that accusation is thrown around, you'd think we have enough to sell our demi-god surplus to cults in need of more. PS: The "I'll be downvoted for my contrarian idea but ..." stuff is for reddit, not here, tbh.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Ntrails 10y ago
>everybody who knew him found him to be a genuinely nice and caring person... Whilst that may be true, I've not read about a lot of tragic deaths where everyone who knew the person thought they were a prick. The point being raised is "Do we really think his theories had unusual insight/value or is his work being viewed through the lens of his death being tragic?". It seems like an entirely valid question to ask. In terms of "the joker being a rational actor who achieved his goals". Well personally I think he's misinterpreted the film/characters, but I know i'm not an expert on such things so the most I can say is that I'll take his view with a pretty chunky pinch of salt.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mapmeld 10y ago
I found it frustrating that famous technologists and thought-leaders had stories and praises for him after he died, which were not seen while he was alive, fighting prosecution, and needing their support. From an archived Wikipedia page, you see few statements of support: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Swartz&oldid=524496002 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Swartz&oldi... Aaron was private about his difficulties with the case, but it was not at all a secret... I think many people -especially those with influence in the open data space- were aware of it and doing nothing.

speaktruth 10y ago

The difficult but necessary thing is to describe his real public influence and legacy without hurting those close to him. His ideas had always much less weight then his persona that was created by others and to some degree by him. There is no reason to judge him for that, because we all strive for significance and nobody is perfect. But I agree we should stop to further support that bumptious memory of him. In the end, he was also a victim of dynamics that where not in his influence. There was people who wanted to make an example of him, because he (like many others) wanted to set information free. I liked him because he was good looking in a JFK kind of sense. His confident charisma was pleasant and comforting, his words never misplaced. I miss him.

Eupolemos 10y ago

He is a symbol. Every time he's mentioned, someone feel the overwhelming need to pop up and share their "unpopular but realistic opinion". I think that is embarrassing.

pieter1976 10y ago
And there is the problem. He is being treated as a symbol, rather than a fellow human being who walked the planet with the rest of us and had his own demons.
- dagenleg 10y ago
  It's not like he cares, being dead and all.
  - cooper12 10y ago
    Tell that to his brother: https://medium.com/@swartzcr/people-call-me-aaron-3761481871e5 https://medium.com/@swartzcr/people-call-me-aaron-3761481871...
    - dagenleg 10y ago
      I don't see how is that relevant. Why should we care about his brother having an identity crisis? It's sad, but even the brother complains about being overshadowed by his dead brother, not about his brother being made into icon.
      - cooper12 10y ago
        It's exactly because he's an icon that his brother is overshadowed by him.
- Eupolemos 10y ago
  I don't see that as a problem - why do you? One does not detract from or rule out the other.

chmike 10y ago

He is estimated by many people for his multiple significant contributions that he started at a young age. He also made mistakes and a very big one (committing suicide). You say you don't understand why people estimate him. What's the point in saying that ? Who cares ? Are you asking the arguments justifying why people seam to estimate him so much ? Are you calling back into question the arguments justifying that he is estimated ? Them give us your arguments. That you don't understand that Aaron is estimated could have many explanations. You could be stupid. You could discard or ignore data points. Your "measuring stick" could be bogus or too subjective. Some people may glorify him as semi-god because they are themselves stupid or want to piggy bag their reputation with the one of Aaron. Or maybe Aaron was just an impostor as you might be inferring. My feeling is that "ignorance" is overrated these days. A comment that just say "I don't understand X" has very low pertinence value and, in my opinion, should not be upvoted on hacker news. Please reformulate the point you would like to make and present your arguments. Only arguments are really relevant. I downvoted you for the reasons above.

hx87 10y ago

I have never understood the use of "I fully expect to be downvoted" as a form of virtue signalling.

lgas 10y ago
Ah see there's your problem, it's actually doofus-signalling.

jjtheblunt 10y ago

I totally agree with you: sad that he gave up on life, but what did _he_ really do? Sort of sit on the periphery of reddit? Complain and act entitled? The saddest thing is perhaps that folks 'worship'ing him contribute more than he did, day after day.