4 ms·

It doesn't matter if Aaron Swartz is ineligible. We should still nominate him. We should nominate him so many times that granting the award to anyone else makes

by glomek 10y ago

It doesn't matter if Aaron Swartz is ineligible. We should still nominate him. We should nominate him so many times that granting the award to anyone else makes this award an obviously disingenuous publicity stunt.

ptero 10y ago
I'd vote for Swartz or Snowden any day. But IMO voting for Swartz would serve mostly to shame MIT. Voting for someone else might make a difference to a live person.
- glomek 10y ago
  MIT needs to be shamed publicly, regularly and continuously until they publicly apologize for their shameful behavior. Giving this award to Swartz, and giving the money to his parents, along with a public statement of remorse and a public commitment to behaving more honorably in the future, would be an excellent way for them to do this.
  - codewiz 10y ago
    Joi Ito, the current director of the Media Lab, highly praised Aaron during the memorial held at the Media Lab in 2013: http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N12/swartz.html http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N12/swartz.html The rest of MIT might deserve shaming, but please don't punish the Media Lab.
    - kyledrake 10y ago
      It's not my intention to "punish" Media Lab, I like the work they do. But from the article you just posted: > The mood changed later in the memorial when speakers began criticizing MIT’s involvement in the Swartz case. Swartz’ partner, Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, asked MIT to consider whether it considered itself a “scientist” or “bureaucracy” and expressed skepticism about the Abelson report. It's clear from the dialogue in here that this was not a sufficient response for the wider community, and that more reform and response was (and still is) expected. The perception is that there was a largely neutral response from a part of MIT that should have been one of the loudest. I just spent a month in Cambridge, and while I met some great people working on important things, I have to say, there's definitely some ossification over there and it's a real problem. We need some very loud advocates for online and software freedom in the academic world right now, perhaps more than we've ever needed them. And yes, we still need the right to read research produced with public funding. I agree with many of the people in here that this should have been named the Aaron Swartz Disobedience Award, in his honor. Or keep the name, but say that it being awarded in his memory. It would have sent a powerful message, both to future Aarons and to the MIT upper admins that have steadfastly refused to own up to what they did. This award is a great idea, but the silence of not even mentioning his name in it when it's the thing on everyone's mind is deafening.
      - dgellow 10y ago
        > I just spent a month in Cambridge, and while I met some great people working on important things, I have to say, there's definitely some ossification over there and it's a real problem. What does "ossification" means in this context?
  - COMPUTERLOSER 10y ago
    MIT is only okay with "disruption" and "disobedience" in the late stage capitalism meanings of those words. They merely put up with the 70s hacker culture until it interfered with their ability to function as an obedient conduit for defense industry contracts.
  - ptero 10y ago
    If MIT were a person, sure. But it is a large organization with members holding multiple competing views. If one group is trying to do something good, do not shame them for another groups deeds, use them. I'm not saying that this prize corrects the injustice done. It's an orthogonal option to do good. My 2c.
    - throwaway743824 10y ago
      Those good people would hopefully want people to hold MIT to a standard when it comes to things like admissions, community involvement, support of students and researchers etc. rather than formal prizes. But maybe (hopefully) this is important for internal politics at MIT and not the best they can do.
- laser 10y ago
  And beyond that– to potentially many live people that the recipient is able to positively impact.
kevinr 10y ago
Unpopular opinion: Aaron Swartz abused the trust which was placed in him by MIT as its guest when engaging in his civil disobedience, and MIT was perfectly justified not to intercede in his case. A bit like if your friend comes to your house, you tell him, "don't smoke weed outside, the cops around here will arrest you," and your friend says "I support marijuana legalization, so I'll smoke wherever I want." Your friend smokes up on your front steps, you try to get him to stop (it's your house after all), and then the cops show up, rough you up a bit, and arrest him. There are many more deserving than Aaron Swartz of this award, within and without the MIT community.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  Exactly The AS widows are becoming annoying
  - glomek 10y ago
    Aaron Swartz being dead is becoming annoying.
    - sillysaurus3 10y ago
      There are many messages to take from Aaron's death. I think one of the messages is that mental illness can affect anyone. Even people who seem perfectly normal. Even those who are rich. Even elites. One reason Aaron took his own life might be that he felt he had no one to turn to. Or maybe he felt he shouldn't turn to anyone because he'd somehow be considered a failure. Although it's perfectly valid to say that he was a victim of an injustice, I think we should also be conveying an additional message: That if you're dealing with something heavy, it's ok to reach out. Hand in hand with that, the stigma against mental illness needs to end.
    - komali2 10y ago
      Aaron Swartz is mostly dead because of untreated mental illness. The things that happened to him were bad, but it's not MIT's fault he was suicidal.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
xxcode 10y ago
interesting titbit: aaron's dad (Bob Swartz) worked as a patent attorney at the media lab. Not sure if he still does, but he did. some external reference: https://www.media.mit.edu/videos/aaronsw-2013-03-12/ https://www.media.mit.edu/videos/aaronsw-2013-03-12/

by glomek 10y ago

ptero 10y ago

I'd vote for Swartz or Snowden any day. But IMO voting for Swartz would serve mostly to shame MIT. Voting for someone else might make a difference to a live person.

glomek 10y ago
MIT needs to be shamed publicly, regularly and continuously until they publicly apologize for their shameful behavior. Giving this award to Swartz, and giving the money to his parents, along with a public statement of remorse and a public commitment to behaving more honorably in the future, would be an excellent way for them to do this.
- codewiz 10y ago
  Joi Ito, the current director of the Media Lab, highly praised Aaron during the memorial held at the Media Lab in 2013: http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N12/swartz.html http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N12/swartz.html The rest of MIT might deserve shaming, but please don't punish the Media Lab.
  - kyledrake 10y ago
    It's not my intention to "punish" Media Lab, I like the work they do. But from the article you just posted: > The mood changed later in the memorial when speakers began criticizing MIT’s involvement in the Swartz case. Swartz’ partner, Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, asked MIT to consider whether it considered itself a “scientist” or “bureaucracy” and expressed skepticism about the Abelson report. It's clear from the dialogue in here that this was not a sufficient response for the wider community, and that more reform and response was (and still is) expected. The perception is that there was a largely neutral response from a part of MIT that should have been one of the loudest. I just spent a month in Cambridge, and while I met some great people working on important things, I have to say, there's definitely some ossification over there and it's a real problem. We need some very loud advocates for online and software freedom in the academic world right now, perhaps more than we've ever needed them. And yes, we still need the right to read research produced with public funding. I agree with many of the people in here that this should have been named the Aaron Swartz Disobedience Award, in his honor. Or keep the name, but say that it being awarded in his memory. It would have sent a powerful message, both to future Aarons and to the MIT upper admins that have steadfastly refused to own up to what they did. This award is a great idea, but the silence of not even mentioning his name in it when it's the thing on everyone's mind is deafening.
    - dgellow 10y ago
      > I just spent a month in Cambridge, and while I met some great people working on important things, I have to say, there's definitely some ossification over there and it's a real problem. What does "ossification" means in this context?
- COMPUTERLOSER 10y ago
  MIT is only okay with "disruption" and "disobedience" in the late stage capitalism meanings of those words. They merely put up with the 70s hacker culture until it interfered with their ability to function as an obedient conduit for defense industry contracts.
- ptero 10y ago
  If MIT were a person, sure. But it is a large organization with members holding multiple competing views. If one group is trying to do something good, do not shame them for another groups deeds, use them. I'm not saying that this prize corrects the injustice done. It's an orthogonal option to do good. My 2c.
  - throwaway743824 10y ago
    Those good people would hopefully want people to hold MIT to a standard when it comes to things like admissions, community involvement, support of students and researchers etc. rather than formal prizes. But maybe (hopefully) this is important for internal politics at MIT and not the best they can do.
laser 10y ago
And beyond that– to potentially many live people that the recipient is able to positively impact.

kevinr 10y ago

Unpopular opinion: Aaron Swartz abused the trust which was placed in him by MIT as its guest when engaging in his civil disobedience, and MIT was perfectly justified not to intercede in his case. A bit like if your friend comes to your house, you tell him, "don't smoke weed outside, the cops around here will arrest you," and your friend says "I support marijuana legalization, so I'll smoke wherever I want." Your friend smokes up on your front steps, you try to get him to stop (it's your house after all), and then the cops show up, rough you up a bit, and arrest him. There are many more deserving than Aaron Swartz of this award, within and without the MIT community.

raverbashing 10y ago
Exactly The AS widows are becoming annoying
- glomek 10y ago
  Aaron Swartz being dead is becoming annoying.
  - sillysaurus3 10y ago
    There are many messages to take from Aaron's death. I think one of the messages is that mental illness can affect anyone. Even people who seem perfectly normal. Even those who are rich. Even elites. One reason Aaron took his own life might be that he felt he had no one to turn to. Or maybe he felt he shouldn't turn to anyone because he'd somehow be considered a failure. Although it's perfectly valid to say that he was a victim of an injustice, I think we should also be conveying an additional message: That if you're dealing with something heavy, it's ok to reach out. Hand in hand with that, the stigma against mental illness needs to end.
  - komali2 10y ago
    Aaron Swartz is mostly dead because of untreated mental illness. The things that happened to him were bad, but it's not MIT's fault he was suicidal.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

xxcode 10y ago

interesting titbit: aaron's dad (Bob Swartz) worked as a patent attorney at the media lab. Not sure if he still does, but he did. some external reference: https://www.media.mit.edu/videos/aaronsw-2013-03-12/ https://www.media.mit.edu/videos/aaronsw-2013-03-12/