6 ms·

I don’t understand the cult of personality around Aaron. It’s like a self insert for people that fantasize about sticking it to the man or something; the tragic

I don’t understand the cult of personality around Aaron. It’s like a self insert for people that fantasize about sticking it to the man or something; the tragic hero, the genius boy who died not realizing his potential, the man who dared to defy the authorities. Yawn. Fact is Aaron was an angsty teen with an axe to grind with the authorities . Reading Chomsky certainly didn’t help. Acting out childishly by spreading copy righted material, getting caught and whining about how all of this is so unfair… Look, he was no genius. Genius does not invent reddit; it invents facebook and then proceeds to take over the world because actual, real, genius understands the rules of the game. Aaron was smart enough to understand just how fucked things are but oh so very dumb to act out on his aggressive impulses. The very same impulses that later lead him to kill himself. Ironically his suicide accomplished far more than his technical know how could ever hope to achieve. p.s. aaron was no hero. You dont ever want to be him and you certainly dont want your children to be him. His ideals were pure and correct, but he could not accept we’re living in a world filled with trash humans. Should’ve played the game correctly imho.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
raxxorrax 5y ago
Maybe the prosecution by an Obama diversity hire that drove him into financial ruin was part of that too. Of course all these nasty civil rights movements were just emotional impulses that could not control themselves. Of course there is an unchangeable game subjected to the rules of power and you understand that and we should build a cult of personality around you instead? No thank you.
mberning 5y ago
Agree completely. By all accounts he was a bright guy, bu he did something very foolish. He did a crime and rather than play ball he martyred himself. Yes there probably was prosecutorial overreach and yes our criminal justice system could use reform. But this guy was no saint in the matter and could have easily got off with a minor sentence.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  So you think Rosa Parks was also a criminal for having the foolishness to refuse to give up her seat for a white? Breaking immoral laws is a sign of being a hero, not a criminal. Unfortunately the monied interests were more powerful than a brilliant kid, so we have to live in a world without Aaron Swartz but with rich idiots in charge of scientific publishing.
  - anon7725 5y ago
    You’re seriously comparing Aaron Swartz to Rosa Parks? Mental illness needs to be destigmatized, and access to treatment is imperative. Aaron’s death was a tragedy, and the government was engaged in serious prosecutorial overreach. But, Rosa Parks? Seriously now? Aaron was engaged in a puerile “hack” that spun out of control when the school and feds got involved. The hagiography around this poor guy is nauseating sometimes.
    - notthemessiah 5y ago
      Rosa Parks was involved with stubbornly giving up her seat in the front of the colored section for a white woman, which "spun out of control when the feds got involved" but like Swartz she pushed her way through the Justice system to challenge unfair laws. Segregation was obviously more disgusting, but I don't like the idea that activists of the past are incomparable saintlike figures, especially when they were extremely contentious for their time. I'm sure plenty of people said that Parks was being "puerile" at the time and should have just given up her seat instead of making it an issue, but sometimes making something an issue is the only way to create an opportunity for progress.
  - anon7725 5y ago
    > rich idiots in charge of scientific publishing. You know who’s to blame for scientific publishing? Fucking academia. The web was built to allow research papers to be shared. Seriously - it’s fucking purpose built for that very task. There are no resources involved in scientific publishing besides the time of the authors and reviewers, none of whom are employed by the publishers. So why do we have any academic publishers at all, over 30 years after the web was invented? Surely we could have solved the problems with organizing peer review, etc by now. The answer is: academia wants it to be this way. Researchers want to publish in prestige journals. The cred from prestige journals is integral to the academic career path in enough disciplines that the system is allowed to self perpetuate.
rambambram 5y ago
Maybe not a genius, but definitely a hero. Following your logic, then the real heroes are actually the cowards?
- secondcoming 5y ago
  A hero in the same sense that Che Guevara or even Pablo Escobar are considered heroes by some people.
  - tinco 5y ago
    So a hero in the dictionary sense of the word? In the sense of the commonly agreed upon definition?
  - twofornone 5y ago
    The fact that you don't agree with a person's cause does not preclude them from being heroic. Pablo Escobar was a drug kingpin, but Che Guevera at least thought he was fighting for his people.
johnny53169 5y ago
Cult of personality? Are we living on the same planet? As far as I know people talk about him a couple of time a year. No statue, no memorial. Yeah people erase his flaws a bit, yes it's a bit annoying, but he actually tried to do something positive in his life instead of trying to get rich at any costs like that "genius" of Zuckerberg (genius for what?). So people remember him, I doubt most people will care when Zuckerberg will die, he just didn't do anything to deserve it, your money doesn't make you a good person.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  Zuckerberg will be remembered in the annals of history. Swartz won't even be in a footnote. One of the things about having ridiculous amounts of wealth is that it affords you to make a ridiculous number of bets. You only have to hit on a few to be remembered as a genius. Just ask Tommy Edison.
blinzy 5y ago
I don't like how people downvoted this comment without even saying why. The wording may be harsh (not what I think, just attempting to guess) but I believe there is truth in it; although the idea of allowing free access to academic journals is laudable, the way he went about it was naive/wrong in my opinion and impulsive as you say.
- secondcoming 5y ago
  Comment is flagged now. Bizarre.
- tinco 5y ago
  Because it's disrespectful, and dismissive of the effort Aaron made to make our world a better place. It's also overly pessimistic, sure there's trash people on the planet and they're often in positions of power. But they are not a majority and it is possible to genuinely affect change through activism and drawing attention to causes, no how matter how childish or petty the activism might seem. Finally and most importantly on this site specifically it should be down voted because it is flagrantly anti intellectual to resign to the status quo and to tell people to not be disruptive and to basically "play the game" and go work for Facebook or whatever. What's a person who has those views even doing on this site? Just go outside and play golf with the governor of Missouri or whatever.
  - blinzy 5y ago
    I don't know which way the OP intended the "play the game" sentence, but I didn't take it to mean go work for Facebook or whatever; instead I took it as don't be naive in thinking you can fight against injustices in the system like so, because it will land you in prison (or worse); instead maybe find alternative ways that let you accomplish the same end goal, even if you have to accept progress cannot be achieved as quickly as the direct unsafe approach.
- Maakuth 5y ago
  Do you have better suggestions how to allow such access? As far as I know, Sci-Hub is the current leader in this field, with methods not that different from Aaron's. The official methods to achieve this proceed at snail's pace and one doubts if they would move anywhere without the pressure caused by the activism.
Topolomancer 5y ago
Not sure whether this is your intention, but your comment comes across as lacking some empathy. Had he been convicted, he would face 1 Million USD in fines as well as 35 years in prison. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be under such pressure. Please do not make light of the complex motives that drive people to suicide. (and if someone is reading this who is mentally in a bad place right now, please seek out some help: https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/ https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/)
- tzs 5y ago
  > Had he been convicted, he would face 1 Million USD in fines as well as 35 years in prison. That's a common misconception, largely due to the ridiculous way the DoJ writes its press releases. Each Federal crime carries a range of possible prison time. What you actually get depends on a large number of factors, such as how much damage you caused, whether or not your crime was a drug crime, past criminal history, and many others. When the DoJ writes press releases they just add up for each charge the maximum that it is theoretically possible for someone to get from the crime if they hit all the factors that push for longer sentences and none of the factors that push for shorter sentences. So when they arrest you for crime X and write their press release, they don't actually tell what you, the first time offender who committed a mild instance of the crime with no aggravating factors and several mitigating factors is facing. No. They tell what the Voldemort or Moriarty or Hitler of whatever activity you were doing would face for crime X. It is even worse, because they actually even exaggerate what Voldemort or Moriarty or Hitler would actually face, too! If a person is charged with multiple crimes from the same underlying act, say crimes X, Y, and Z, and is convicted of all of them the crimes are grouped together into one for sentencing, with the sentence for the group being the sentence you would have received for whichever for X, Y, or Z you would have gotten the longest sentence for if that was the only one you were convicted on. Here's a good article on this in general: "Crime: Whale Sushi. Sentence: ELEVENTY MILLION YEARS." [1] Here's a couple articles specifically on the Swartz charging. This one covers the charges themselves: "The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz (Part 1: The Law)" [2] This one covers the prosecution, including a look at probably sentencing: "The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz (Part 2: Prosecutorial Discretion)" [3] [1] https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc... [2] https://volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ https://volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ [3] https://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ https://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-a...
vouwfietsman 5y ago
Wow this is some harsh criticism. I'd be curious to know why he deserves to be attacked for his technical know-how. Also I am curious to know why you think committing a crime out of conviction is inherently immoral. If we equate laws with morals we will never improve our ethical understanding of the world. It is exactly the people willing to commit crime with the goal of improving our moral compass that should be celebrated as heroes. If we would all "play ball" then we would be stuck without voting rights in a feudal system of kings and peasants. Finally, if genius invents Facebook let's pray we ran out of geniuses.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

raxxorrax 5y ago

Maybe the prosecution by an Obama diversity hire that drove him into financial ruin was part of that too. Of course all these nasty civil rights movements were just emotional impulses that could not control themselves. Of course there is an unchangeable game subjected to the rules of power and you understand that and we should build a cult of personality around you instead? No thank you.

mberning 5y ago

Agree completely. By all accounts he was a bright guy, bu he did something very foolish. He did a crime and rather than play ball he martyred himself. Yes there probably was prosecutorial overreach and yes our criminal justice system could use reform. But this guy was no saint in the matter and could have easily got off with a minor sentence.

tsimionescu 5y ago
So you think Rosa Parks was also a criminal for having the foolishness to refuse to give up her seat for a white? Breaking immoral laws is a sign of being a hero, not a criminal. Unfortunately the monied interests were more powerful than a brilliant kid, so we have to live in a world without Aaron Swartz but with rich idiots in charge of scientific publishing.
- anon7725 5y ago
  You’re seriously comparing Aaron Swartz to Rosa Parks? Mental illness needs to be destigmatized, and access to treatment is imperative. Aaron’s death was a tragedy, and the government was engaged in serious prosecutorial overreach. But, Rosa Parks? Seriously now? Aaron was engaged in a puerile “hack” that spun out of control when the school and feds got involved. The hagiography around this poor guy is nauseating sometimes.
  - notthemessiah 5y ago
    Rosa Parks was involved with stubbornly giving up her seat in the front of the colored section for a white woman, which "spun out of control when the feds got involved" but like Swartz she pushed her way through the Justice system to challenge unfair laws. Segregation was obviously more disgusting, but I don't like the idea that activists of the past are incomparable saintlike figures, especially when they were extremely contentious for their time. I'm sure plenty of people said that Parks was being "puerile" at the time and should have just given up her seat instead of making it an issue, but sometimes making something an issue is the only way to create an opportunity for progress.
- anon7725 5y ago
  > rich idiots in charge of scientific publishing. You know who’s to blame for scientific publishing? Fucking academia. The web was built to allow research papers to be shared. Seriously - it’s fucking purpose built for that very task. There are no resources involved in scientific publishing besides the time of the authors and reviewers, none of whom are employed by the publishers. So why do we have any academic publishers at all, over 30 years after the web was invented? Surely we could have solved the problems with organizing peer review, etc by now. The answer is: academia wants it to be this way. Researchers want to publish in prestige journals. The cred from prestige journals is integral to the academic career path in enough disciplines that the system is allowed to self perpetuate.

rambambram 5y ago

Maybe not a genius, but definitely a hero. Following your logic, then the real heroes are actually the cowards?

secondcoming 5y ago
A hero in the same sense that Che Guevara or even Pablo Escobar are considered heroes by some people.
- tinco 5y ago
  So a hero in the dictionary sense of the word? In the sense of the commonly agreed upon definition?
- twofornone 5y ago
  The fact that you don't agree with a person's cause does not preclude them from being heroic. Pablo Escobar was a drug kingpin, but Che Guevera at least thought he was fighting for his people.

johnny53169 5y ago

Cult of personality? Are we living on the same planet? As far as I know people talk about him a couple of time a year. No statue, no memorial. Yeah people erase his flaws a bit, yes it's a bit annoying, but he actually tried to do something positive in his life instead of trying to get rich at any costs like that "genius" of Zuckerberg (genius for what?). So people remember him, I doubt most people will care when Zuckerberg will die, he just didn't do anything to deserve it, your money doesn't make you a good person.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago
Zuckerberg will be remembered in the annals of history. Swartz won't even be in a footnote. One of the things about having ridiculous amounts of wealth is that it affords you to make a ridiculous number of bets. You only have to hit on a few to be remembered as a genius. Just ask Tommy Edison.

blinzy 5y ago

I don't like how people downvoted this comment without even saying why. The wording may be harsh (not what I think, just attempting to guess) but I believe there is truth in it; although the idea of allowing free access to academic journals is laudable, the way he went about it was naive/wrong in my opinion and impulsive as you say.

secondcoming 5y ago
Comment is flagged now. Bizarre.
tinco 5y ago
Because it's disrespectful, and dismissive of the effort Aaron made to make our world a better place. It's also overly pessimistic, sure there's trash people on the planet and they're often in positions of power. But they are not a majority and it is possible to genuinely affect change through activism and drawing attention to causes, no how matter how childish or petty the activism might seem. Finally and most importantly on this site specifically it should be down voted because it is flagrantly anti intellectual to resign to the status quo and to tell people to not be disruptive and to basically "play the game" and go work for Facebook or whatever. What's a person who has those views even doing on this site? Just go outside and play golf with the governor of Missouri or whatever.
- blinzy 5y ago
  I don't know which way the OP intended the "play the game" sentence, but I didn't take it to mean go work for Facebook or whatever; instead I took it as don't be naive in thinking you can fight against injustices in the system like so, because it will land you in prison (or worse); instead maybe find alternative ways that let you accomplish the same end goal, even if you have to accept progress cannot be achieved as quickly as the direct unsafe approach.
Maakuth 5y ago
Do you have better suggestions how to allow such access? As far as I know, Sci-Hub is the current leader in this field, with methods not that different from Aaron's. The official methods to achieve this proceed at snail's pace and one doubts if they would move anywhere without the pressure caused by the activism.

Topolomancer 5y ago

Not sure whether this is your intention, but your comment comes across as lacking some empathy. Had he been convicted, he would face 1 Million USD in fines as well as 35 years in prison. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be under such pressure. Please do not make light of the complex motives that drive people to suicide. (and if someone is reading this who is mentally in a bad place right now, please seek out some help: https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/ https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/)

tzs 5y ago
> Had he been convicted, he would face 1 Million USD in fines as well as 35 years in prison. That's a common misconception, largely due to the ridiculous way the DoJ writes its press releases. Each Federal crime carries a range of possible prison time. What you actually get depends on a large number of factors, such as how much damage you caused, whether or not your crime was a drug crime, past criminal history, and many others. When the DoJ writes press releases they just add up for each charge the maximum that it is theoretically possible for someone to get from the crime if they hit all the factors that push for longer sentences and none of the factors that push for shorter sentences. So when they arrest you for crime X and write their press release, they don't actually tell what you, the first time offender who committed a mild instance of the crime with no aggravating factors and several mitigating factors is facing. No. They tell what the Voldemort or Moriarty or Hitler of whatever activity you were doing would face for crime X. It is even worse, because they actually even exaggerate what Voldemort or Moriarty or Hitler would actually face, too! If a person is charged with multiple crimes from the same underlying act, say crimes X, Y, and Z, and is convicted of all of them the crimes are grouped together into one for sentencing, with the sentence for the group being the sentence you would have received for whichever for X, Y, or Z you would have gotten the longest sentence for if that was the only one you were convicted on. Here's a good article on this in general: "Crime: Whale Sushi. Sentence: ELEVENTY MILLION YEARS." [1] Here's a couple articles specifically on the Swartz charging. This one covers the charges themselves: "The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz (Part 1: The Law)" [2] This one covers the prosecution, including a look at probably sentencing: "The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz (Part 2: Prosecutorial Discretion)" [3] [1] https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc... [2] https://volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ https://volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ [3] https://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ https://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-a...

vouwfietsman 5y ago

Wow this is some harsh criticism. I'd be curious to know why he deserves to be attacked for his technical know-how. Also I am curious to know why you think committing a crime out of conviction is inherently immoral. If we equate laws with morals we will never improve our ethical understanding of the world. It is exactly the people willing to commit crime with the goal of improving our moral compass that should be celebrated as heroes. If we would all "play ball" then we would be stuck without voting rights in a feudal system of kings and peasants. Finally, if genius invents Facebook let's pray we ran out of geniuses.