3 ms·

Feel free to run your own Sci-Hub, then. It's not like this is a massively collaborative project that she's the executive decision-maker of; it's largely just h

Feel free to run your own Sci-Hub, then. It's not like this is a massively collaborative project that she's the executive decision-maker of; it's largely just her.

nix23 5y ago
Don't you see a problem here? >>Blocking access to ~free knowledge because one is offended >it's largely just her Yeah and that's the problem, with all dictatorships. >It's not like this is a massively collaborative project Who then uploads the content? Her alone?
- pessimizer 5y ago
  She's the one delivering that access. And if you want to define sole decisionmaking power as dictatorship, I'm the dictator of the cookies I baked yesterday, too. You're free to provide access to the papers yourself.
  - nix23 5y ago
    >I'm the dictator of the cookies I baked yesterday Your cookies are not important for the scientific world, and she is NOT the baker of the Scientific papers, just a publisher, and since it's not her content she has even less rights to block a country from partially self made work. Don't you see the irony in it? >...to remove all barriers in the way of science (but don't name insects after me)
    - babyblueblanket 5y ago
      If she's just a publisher, feel free to publish it yourself.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        I think you're side-stepping the point: It is valid to point out her self-contradiction of her ideals. I can even understand her anger: she's been harassed with lawsuits in multiple countries and companies have probably had her personally investigated in those efforts. Paranoia isn't really even the appropriate word in that case. But it's still an extreme overreaction and contradiction of her ideals to block an entire country over one person's insult.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Imagine your stated mission was to provide cookies for everyone in town because the local cookie factory charged $100 each. Then one kid said they didn't like the cookie, so you banned all kids from eating them. You'd be within your rights, sure. But you would also be a going back and violating your own ideals. So, sure, it's her site, her rules, but I think it's fair to expect someone to uphold their principals and be disappointed when they don't.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > Who then uploads the content? Her alone? Not lately, but usually she does a fair share of it. And she's the sole curator.
  - nix23 5y ago
    Yeah...when Fan's overlook the downsides. Why do you block access (for a whole country) when someone gave your name to a wasp?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
Karunamon 5y ago
A lot of the benefit of a site like this is moot if entire countries are banned for petty reasons. Imagine if the US was blocked because she didn't like the former president. And, quite honestly, speaking about rights in the context of what amounts to a piracy site is kinda ironic.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  It was less than a week, and I don't think it's happened more than once. If you just consider uptime, Sci-Hub is doing pretty well.

Feel free to run your own Sci-Hub, then. It's not like this is a massively collaborative project that she's the executive decision-maker of; it's largely just her.

nix23 5y ago

Don't you see a problem here? >>Blocking access to ~free knowledge because one is offended >it's largely just her Yeah and that's the problem, with all dictatorships. >It's not like this is a massively collaborative project Who then uploads the content? Her alone?

pessimizer 5y ago
She's the one delivering that access. And if you want to define sole decisionmaking power as dictatorship, I'm the dictator of the cookies I baked yesterday, too. You're free to provide access to the papers yourself.
- nix23 5y ago
  >I'm the dictator of the cookies I baked yesterday Your cookies are not important for the scientific world, and she is NOT the baker of the Scientific papers, just a publisher, and since it's not her content she has even less rights to block a country from partially self made work. Don't you see the irony in it? >...to remove all barriers in the way of science (but don't name insects after me)
  - babyblueblanket 5y ago
    If she's just a publisher, feel free to publish it yourself.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      I think you're side-stepping the point: It is valid to point out her self-contradiction of her ideals. I can even understand her anger: she's been harassed with lawsuits in multiple countries and companies have probably had her personally investigated in those efforts. Paranoia isn't really even the appropriate word in that case. But it's still an extreme overreaction and contradiction of her ideals to block an entire country over one person's insult.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Imagine your stated mission was to provide cookies for everyone in town because the local cookie factory charged $100 each. Then one kid said they didn't like the cookie, so you banned all kids from eating them. You'd be within your rights, sure. But you would also be a going back and violating your own ideals. So, sure, it's her site, her rules, but I think it's fair to expect someone to uphold their principals and be disappointed when they don't.
wizzwizz4 5y ago
> Who then uploads the content? Her alone? Not lately, but usually she does a fair share of it. And she's the sole curator.
- nix23 5y ago
  Yeah...when Fan's overlook the downsides. Why do you block access (for a whole country) when someone gave your name to a wasp?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

Karunamon 5y ago

A lot of the benefit of a site like this is moot if entire countries are banned for petty reasons. Imagine if the US was blocked because she didn't like the former president. And, quite honestly, speaking about rights in the context of what amounts to a piracy site is kinda ironic.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
It was less than a week, and I don't think it's happened more than once. If you just consider uptime, Sci-Hub is doing pretty well.