4 ms·
> it’s not clear that the law is being applied to Zuckerberg differently than it was to Swartz given the law wasn’t actually ever applied to Swartz Has Zuckerb
by inetknght 2y ago
> it’s not clear that the law is being applied to Zuckerberg differently than it was to Swartz given the law wasn’t actually ever applied to Swartz
Has Zuckerberg actually been charged with something with equivalent potential consequences?
If not, then your statement is false on its face.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Has Zuckerberg actually been charged with something with equivalent potential consequences? I didn’t say Zuckerberg has been subjected to what Swartz was. Swartz never wielded the nation-state level power of a billionaire—it’s difficult to imagine how he could be subjected to similar psychological stress. I said the law isn’t being applied to Zuckerberg (or anyone who has downloaded LibGen, for that matter) differently because the law was never applied to Swartz. Given the unpopular Swartz prosecution ended Ortiz’s career, and the lack of recent criminal copyright cases, it’s unlikely anyone would attempt to apply it as they did then. To anyone, including Zuckerberg. TL; DR If you dislike what Zuckerberg is doing, you’re probably advocating for a clarification of the law. If you like it, erm, nothing much to do here.
- inetknght 2y ago> the law was never applied to Swartz Merely being charged with or investigated for a crime is absolutely an application of the law.