Let's not get carried away here. MIT administrators still use Swartz as an example to threaten potential whistleblowers. Faced with that, people back down. For

Let's not get carried away here. MIT administrators still use Swartz as an example to threaten potential whistleblowers. Faced with that, people back down. For all the public repentance, this was intentional and malicious by at least parts of the Central Admin. MIT has good guys and bad guys. The good guys won here, rejecting Elsevier. The bad players on the Swartz front are still there, and still making decision similar to Swartz. People back down much more quickly with that example held up as what happens if you don't play ball.