> You quote one of Ronald Reagan's most famous lines, and you're telling the reader they missed your point if they didn't take it to be about copyright? Did I m

> You quote one of Ronald Reagan's most famous lines, and you're telling the reader they missed your point if they didn't take it to be about copyright? Did I miss the real "/s"? The OP wasn't paying attention to important context. It would be like if someone at Reagan's speech said, "There's no substance to that line. It wouldn't have been on TV except for the person who said it. It's hard to see how something like this is going to generate useful discussion. Is it the color of the wall or the dimensions of the wall that he has a problem with?" PG, a man with a huge reach, nothing to gain (and a lot to lose) from taking a stand on such a controversial issue that the public is far from knowing what the just side is, who doesn't mince words and thinks deeply about topics until he arrives at the truth, just came out and stated his support for Sci-Hub. Beyond the practical matter that he is at least an acquaintence of @jack's, perhaps even a friend (I have no knowledge of their relationship, other than I had a YC dinner a long time ago with them), and this might lead to @Sci_hub's reinstatement, it is an inspirational message for those of us who are fighting so that every child has access to the world's best information. YMMV, but I personally would consider the abolition of copyrights and patents to be bigger than the reunification of Germany in the long run. Context matters. The substance is deep.