7 ms·

1) I don't think Aaron made more than six figures from Reddit. Soon after acquisition, he went on walkabout, and then he got canned. He probably got some money,

1) I don't think Aaron made more than six figures from Reddit. Soon after acquisition, he went on walkabout, and then he got canned. He probably got some money, but did not vest most of his share. So, don't worry - he's poor enough for your pity and support. 2) As to your second line of thought, that we should punish him because he consciously broke the law... I disagree with anyone on this forum who says that Aaron didn't know the potential consequences of his actions, and therefore should not be punished. But I also disagree with you. This was a victimless crime, and the only ones pursuing it are some relentless G-men. Where is the corporation or person that has been wronged? Who, in the public, wants to pillory Aaron? What did Aaron gain? Do we really need to make an example of him, so this doesn't happen again? Is this really good a use of taxes? My reaction is just shame and disgust... I mean, really? This brilliant kid is going to jail because of civil disobedience? Just so we can show there is still a book than can be thrown?

tptacek 14y ago
From the prosecution's vantage point --- and please stop for a minute and consider that perspective even though there's no chance you'll agree with it --- this was not a victimless crime. As the prosecution sees it, Aaron broke into a service and took information that JSTOR charges 5 figures for access to with the intent of putting it on a file sharing network and thus destroying the commercial value of that information. If you read the indictment, the prosecution's vantage point seems to show that Aaron did this with the intention of destroying the commercial value of the information, because he opposes the commercialization† of that kind of information. The prosecution's charge is that Aaron deliberately set out to harm an organization because they were incompatible with his own ideology. † JSTOR is a nonprofit but you get the drift
- andrewljohnson 14y ago
  The prosecution's perspective is warped by incentives - we should never care about how prosecutors feel or think - they are just tools of the people. Prosecutors need convictions, promotions, and press to succeed at their jobs. At this point, it's not JSTOR who wants this case prosecuted, it's just government agents. And they are just going through the motions. It may be up to a jury to do the right thing - they stand a better change of being unbiased, thankfully for Aaron.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    "We should never care about how prosecutors think" is a nonsense statement even for someone who believes that AUSAs and DAs are invariable corrupt and self-interested.
    - aphabetsoup 14y ago
      How does that follow? Their job is to prosecute. They're not corrupt--they're doing their jobs. No one is faulting them. They're just part of a system that is meant to be punitive even in the face of doing net damage to society. What does putting him in prison accomplish? Obviously they're prosecuting him just because he broke a law. Not because he hurt anyone, or because he stole a bunch of money, or because he is a danger to society. They're trying to put him in prison as punishment for breaking a rule. Which is fine, except that in this case, he's obviously someone capable of making meaningful contributions to society. It just doesn't make sense to lock him up like they're trying to. And all of this doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished--its just very plain to see that prosecutors have a job to do, and being sympathetic to who they're prosecuting isn't part of their job. If they're particularly good at their job, it would be a net loss to society.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Nobody is suggesting that the outcome of every case should follow what prosecutors think. What we are instead now discussing is the ridiculous notion that nobody should even care what they think. Well, pretty Aaron Swartz cares a whole lot about what they think, despite disagreeing strongly with all of it. The subtext of this argument is obviously, "prosecutors are self-interested, and what they claim to think has nothing to do with what they really think, which is 'I am going to pursue whichever cases present the best opportunity for career advancement'." This, too, is a dumb way to think, because however much prosecutors may or may not think that way, judges and juries do not think that way, nor do they believe prosecutors are entirely animated by career concerns.
      - Zak 14y ago
        A prosecutor's job is to seek justice, not convictions. If a prosecutor believes a conviction would be unjust despite being technically compatible with the law, it would be unethical to pursue such a conviction.
- tatsuke95 14y ago
  >"The prosecution's charge is that Aaron deliberately set out to harm an organization because they were incompatible with his own ideology." Sort of like how Rosa Parks decided to harm an organization because it didn't agree with her ideology. I mean, we're a nation of laws, she should have just sat where the bus driver told her to, am I right? Do we even have to debate the idea that sometimes laws are dictated to the people, not by the people? Thankfully there are people who are actually willing to take action, rather than shilling for the powers that be. Academic research by public institutions should be free, in both senses of the word. >"the prosecution's vantage point seems to show that Aaron did this with the intention of destroying the commercial value of the information" Of course they will claim that, what else would they argue?
  - mibbitier 14y ago
    > Sort of like how Rosa Parks decided to harm an organization You may as well shortcut the argument and go straight to mentioning Hitler.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      I remember him. Funny mustache. Did a lot of silly black and white movies or something. No sound for some reason.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Huh? Rosa Parks didn't set out to harm the Montgomery Bus Line. She just took the "wrong" seat. It's funny that people can play the Anti-Godwin without even really knowing who Rosa Parks was; at least you can assume the people who invoke Hitler actually know why Hitler was evil.
    - tatsuke95 14y ago
      >"Rosa Parks didn't set out to harm the Montgomery Bus Line. She just took the "wrong" seat." And Swartz didn't set out to harm JSTOR commercially. That's only the view of prosecutors, which is completely expected. Are you being deliberately obtuse? The point of bringing up Rosa Parks is that you make claims like, "We are a nation ruled by laws, not people. It is not up to Aaron Swartz". Substitute Aaron Swartz for Rosa Parks/Gandhi/whatever other examples people have brought up, and you should see what a ridiculous statement that is. >"It's funny that people can play the Anti-Godwin without even really knowing who Rosa Parks was" What's really funny is that, between calling opposing ideas "dumb" and "retarded", you've managed to conceal from most of the HN community the fact that you're really an arrogant blow-hard.
hollerith 14y ago
>He probably got some money, but did not vest most of his share. If I had no faith at all in your word, I would consider that very unlikely since Aaron was probably an impoverished student at the time, and he seems rational enough not to throw away income in such a reckless way. Anyway, now you've got me curious. ADDED. "If I had no faith at all in your word," was probably not the best way to phrase it. All I meant was, "Before reading your comment, I would have considered it unlikely . . ."
nostrademons 14y ago
1) Reddit's acquisition was a cash deal, reportedly $20M. Aaron made a blog post at one point about walking out with a check with more zeroes than he ever expected to see. I think it's likely he made about $5-7M off it, given that Reddit and Infogami merged right after the SFP, before either had much success.
- andrewljohnson 14y ago
  Alexis says it was between 10-20M: http://www.inc.com/magazine/201206/christine-lagorio/alexis-ohanian-reddit-how-i-did-it.html http://www.inc.com/magazine/201206/christine-lagorio/alexis-... The same article says there were two original founders, and two later founders, which kind of tells me they didn't split that $10-20M evenly. Even if it was all cash with no sort of vesting or earn-out, and Aaron got 10% (sounds about right for a non-true-founder), that would only be $1-2M, and that would be taxed down to six figures. All my financial speculation is based on what I find on the internet, though I have met Aaron a couple of times.
brianobush 14y ago
so this brilliant kid, is allowed a different set of rules from the rest of the populace? he committed a crime with the very intention of stealing and was caught. as a modern society we have rules to curb this behavior - obviously, Aaron, by your post, is above this and needs his own set of rules.

tptacek 14y ago

From the prosecution's vantage point --- and please stop for a minute and consider that perspective even though there's no chance you'll agree with it --- this was not a victimless crime. As the prosecution sees it, Aaron broke into a service and took information that JSTOR charges 5 figures for access to with the intent of putting it on a file sharing network and thus destroying the commercial value of that information. If you read the indictment, the prosecution's vantage point seems to show that Aaron did this with the intention of destroying the commercial value of the information, because he opposes the commercialization† of that kind of information. The prosecution's charge is that Aaron deliberately set out to harm an organization because they were incompatible with his own ideology. † JSTOR is a nonprofit but you get the drift

andrewljohnson 14y ago
The prosecution's perspective is warped by incentives - we should never care about how prosecutors feel or think - they are just tools of the people. Prosecutors need convictions, promotions, and press to succeed at their jobs. At this point, it's not JSTOR who wants this case prosecuted, it's just government agents. And they are just going through the motions. It may be up to a jury to do the right thing - they stand a better change of being unbiased, thankfully for Aaron.
- tptacek 14y ago
  "We should never care about how prosecutors think" is a nonsense statement even for someone who believes that AUSAs and DAs are invariable corrupt and self-interested.
  - aphabetsoup 14y ago
    How does that follow? Their job is to prosecute. They're not corrupt--they're doing their jobs. No one is faulting them. They're just part of a system that is meant to be punitive even in the face of doing net damage to society. What does putting him in prison accomplish? Obviously they're prosecuting him just because he broke a law. Not because he hurt anyone, or because he stole a bunch of money, or because he is a danger to society. They're trying to put him in prison as punishment for breaking a rule. Which is fine, except that in this case, he's obviously someone capable of making meaningful contributions to society. It just doesn't make sense to lock him up like they're trying to. And all of this doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished--its just very plain to see that prosecutors have a job to do, and being sympathetic to who they're prosecuting isn't part of their job. If they're particularly good at their job, it would be a net loss to society.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Nobody is suggesting that the outcome of every case should follow what prosecutors think. What we are instead now discussing is the ridiculous notion that nobody should even care what they think. Well, pretty Aaron Swartz cares a whole lot about what they think, despite disagreeing strongly with all of it. The subtext of this argument is obviously, "prosecutors are self-interested, and what they claim to think has nothing to do with what they really think, which is 'I am going to pursue whichever cases present the best opportunity for career advancement'." This, too, is a dumb way to think, because however much prosecutors may or may not think that way, judges and juries do not think that way, nor do they believe prosecutors are entirely animated by career concerns.
    - Zak 14y ago
      A prosecutor's job is to seek justice, not convictions. If a prosecutor believes a conviction would be unjust despite being technically compatible with the law, it would be unethical to pursue such a conviction.
tatsuke95 14y ago
>"The prosecution's charge is that Aaron deliberately set out to harm an organization because they were incompatible with his own ideology." Sort of like how Rosa Parks decided to harm an organization because it didn't agree with her ideology. I mean, we're a nation of laws, she should have just sat where the bus driver told her to, am I right? Do we even have to debate the idea that sometimes laws are dictated to the people, not by the people? Thankfully there are people who are actually willing to take action, rather than shilling for the powers that be. Academic research by public institutions should be free, in both senses of the word. >"the prosecution's vantage point seems to show that Aaron did this with the intention of destroying the commercial value of the information" Of course they will claim that, what else would they argue?
- mibbitier 14y ago
  > Sort of like how Rosa Parks decided to harm an organization You may as well shortcut the argument and go straight to mentioning Hitler.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    I remember him. Funny mustache. Did a lot of silly black and white movies or something. No sound for some reason.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Huh? Rosa Parks didn't set out to harm the Montgomery Bus Line. She just took the "wrong" seat. It's funny that people can play the Anti-Godwin without even really knowing who Rosa Parks was; at least you can assume the people who invoke Hitler actually know why Hitler was evil.
  - tatsuke95 14y ago
    >"Rosa Parks didn't set out to harm the Montgomery Bus Line. She just took the "wrong" seat." And Swartz didn't set out to harm JSTOR commercially. That's only the view of prosecutors, which is completely expected. Are you being deliberately obtuse? The point of bringing up Rosa Parks is that you make claims like, "We are a nation ruled by laws, not people. It is not up to Aaron Swartz". Substitute Aaron Swartz for Rosa Parks/Gandhi/whatever other examples people have brought up, and you should see what a ridiculous statement that is. >"It's funny that people can play the Anti-Godwin without even really knowing who Rosa Parks was" What's really funny is that, between calling opposing ideas "dumb" and "retarded", you've managed to conceal from most of the HN community the fact that you're really an arrogant blow-hard.

hollerith 14y ago

>He probably got some money, but did not vest most of his share. If I had no faith at all in your word, I would consider that very unlikely since Aaron was probably an impoverished student at the time, and he seems rational enough not to throw away income in such a reckless way. Anyway, now you've got me curious. ADDED. "If I had no faith at all in your word," was probably not the best way to phrase it. All I meant was, "Before reading your comment, I would have considered it unlikely . . ."

nostrademons 14y ago

1) Reddit's acquisition was a cash deal, reportedly $20M. Aaron made a blog post at one point about walking out with a check with more zeroes than he ever expected to see. I think it's likely he made about $5-7M off it, given that Reddit and Infogami merged right after the SFP, before either had much success.

andrewljohnson 14y ago
Alexis says it was between 10-20M: http://www.inc.com/magazine/201206/christine-lagorio/alexis-ohanian-reddit-how-i-did-it.html http://www.inc.com/magazine/201206/christine-lagorio/alexis-... The same article says there were two original founders, and two later founders, which kind of tells me they didn't split that $10-20M evenly. Even if it was all cash with no sort of vesting or earn-out, and Aaron got 10% (sounds about right for a non-true-founder), that would only be $1-2M, and that would be taxed down to six figures. All my financial speculation is based on what I find on the internet, though I have met Aaron a couple of times.

brianobush 14y ago

so this brilliant kid, is allowed a different set of rules from the rest of the populace? he committed a crime with the very intention of stealing and was caught. as a modern society we have rules to curb this behavior - obviously, Aaron, by your post, is above this and needs his own set of rules.