6 ms·

Something particularly bugs me about edw519's comments in the thread you linked to and the recent one about the tragedy -- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5

by kyro 14y ago

Something particularly bugs me about edw519's comments in the thread you linked to and the recent one about the tragedy -- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5047571 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5047571. It's an odd contrast.

danem 14y ago
Where is the contrast? edw519's past remarks remain consistent with the one you've linked to in your comment. Expressing the idea that Aaron should be expected take responsibility for his actions does not imply any ill will on edw519's part. Why does this issue have to be made into something so polarizing? With many here, it's either you believe Aaron should've been able to walk away scot-free, or you support an oppressive, overreaching, corrupt government, and the efforts to limit free access to information. Isn't it?
- tptacek 14y ago
  Does anyone here who has paid any attention to Ed whatsoever believe he would have written that comment had he known that Aaron had already been financially ruined by an overzealous prosecution that had confronted him with a dilemma of pleading guilty to 13 felonies and spending 6 months in prison or taking a crap-shot at 6-7 years in prison? NOBODY KNEW THESE DETAILS AT THE TIME. Aaron was apparently prevented from sharing them. They are shocking. It is not reasonable to get angry at people for reasoning through questions and failing to account for secret information.
  - jspthrowaway2 14y ago
    I think that's part of the point, as someone else said; that we should reserve such stark judgment with the expectation that we don't know all the facts. Ed was pretty clear in his opinion, but probably would have held a different one had he known all the facts. To be honest, that supports the idea that he (and I; I agreed quietly) was wrong at the time. I've taken that lesson to heart personally, just from this thread alone.
  - kyro 14y ago
    No, but he did assume he was asking for funds simply because he wasn't manning up. How many hundreds read/upvoted and made the same assumption? He should've held his judgment, especially with the weight he carries around here. I've been reading his comments for years. I know he's a good guy, but I still think it was a stupid comment to make.
    - citricsquid 14y ago
      No, but he did assume he was asking for funds simply because he wasn't manning up How can any comment ever be made on the internet about something happening then if every commenter is expected to a) assume they know very little of the situation b) not make judgement c) later be held accountable for what they've said based on information not known at the time? Do people need to start including disclaimers when they comment? "This comment is based on my understanding of the situation as presented by the article and would be revised if new things come to light that are not included in this article"?
      - thaumaturgy 14y ago
        I don't understand this sentiment at all. What's wrong with simply not commenting? HN isn't a semi-private coffee shop; this whole post illustrates quite nicely that what is said here is public and long-lasting. Let's try this on for a little more discomfort: what do you think the odds are that Aaron himself read the comments of a few threads posted here about his case? Your entire argument here seems predicated upon people absolutely needing to comment on things that they have no special knowledge of. I don't think that's very defensible.
        jacquesm 14y ago
        > what do you think the odds are that Aaron himself read the comments of a few threads posted here about his case? About 100% or so. That's the bit that hurts the most. The simple solution is this: If you're going to say something positive, absent information feel free to do so. On the other hand, if you're going to say something negative you'd better make damn sure you know what it is that you're talking about. If you don't those words might take on a life of their own at some unspecified point in the future.
  - anu_gupta 14y ago
    So, instead of saying nothing, why did he feel compelled to tell Aaron to 'man up'? I have no idea why you're making excuses for him based on his not understanding the situation. Can't he speak for himself?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - juiceandjuice 14y ago
    No, but it's reasonable to assume those details, while secret, were plausible in a system that has time and again proved itself irrational and unfair. You are asking people to not jump to conclusions about people who jumped to conclusions.
  - btilly 14y ago
    The most important lesson that I have learned from this whole incident is that defending yourself from a federal lawsuit AVERAGES $1.5 million. I had no idea it was that high. I think few of us did. If I had seen that conversation (I missed it) and known that fact back then (I didn't), I'd have definitely corrected Ed at that point. Also shocking is that the purported punishment is so far out of line with what people have gotten in the past. Based on previous examples like Robert Morris (accidentally shut down most of the Internet) and Randal Schwartz (cracked passwords for many accounts at Intel - yes I'm aware of the extenuating circumstances) I would not have expected any jail time to be involved for this "crime". That shocking discrepancy is why I was so fast to sign the petition to fire this particular prosecutor.
baak 14y ago
Why is that a contrast? He didn't support what Aaron allegedly did, so he should be happy that Aaron is dead?
- justin66 14y ago
  > Why is that a contrast? I'm honestly baffled by this question. He didn't just not support what Aaron did, he treated him badly when he requested help and discouraged others from helping. ("man up?" it's difficult to be more contemptuous in so few words.) After reading that original post I wouldn't have called this newer post a contrast. I would have just assumed that his "OH NO" post was an expression of sarcasm from a very, very mean person. I am happy to assume that others are correct and that this probably isn't the case, but still, the contrast is very clear.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    > I would have just assumed that his "OH NO" post was an expression of sarcasm from a very, very mean person. It isn't, please take my word for it. Ed is definitely one of the good guys and mean is an adjective I'd never ever use to refer to him. He's helped countless people here with his insights and care and I'm pretty sure that if he could take that stuff back that he would do so. Words said carelessly can come back to haunt you, the only way to avoid that is to never speak, or to only speak in weasel words. Ed is not very good at weasel words and I consider that a good thing.
    - justin66 14y ago
      As I said, I'm happy to assume the best here, and that you're correct. I _do_ find the need people have to defend the indefensible (namely his original post) troubling, but I suppose it's not my problem...
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        I am not defending the words, I'm defending the person.
glhaynes 14y ago
I'm not sure why: edw519 could easily and reasonably think that what Aaron did was wrong while being very sad that he committed suicide.
- oinksoft 14y ago
  A more cynical observation is that users with high "karma" point totals earn this by parroting the majority opinion or otherwise treating comment threads as a game.
  - jspthrowaway2 14y ago
    Some users get upvoted fairly quickly by username alone, too. Think pg, edw519, patio11, tptacek; I've noticed comments from them will have upvotes in seconds, regardless of content. It's just name recognition, for better or worse. pg could probably leave a comment saying only "This is a comment." and get a hundred points of karma off it. (I'd pay him to try.) So, to an outside observer, you might suggest that these users game Hacker News but the real answer is that they have an audience. It's debatable whether that's their fault, on a case-by-case basis, though. Then you could probably say it goes the other way: a large part of the community feels a certain way because Ed says so (in the top position), or Thomas says so. I've noticed the atmosphere of a thread change after a comment from a "well-known" person is left, rather rapidly on occasion. The momentum of a community like Hacker News is an interesting study, and although I didn't get an opportunity to watch the thread under the microscope, I bet a large part of it was shaped by Ed's comment. Recently I've learned how Hacker News threads are living organisms, and I've noticed the impact of the commentary that I make. If you pay close attention, you'll be surprised at how the thread evolves and grows, particularly based upon what's in the top position.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - pygy_ 14y ago
      Not only they get free upvotes, but the people who disagree with them sometimes get free downvotes. See here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5033743 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5033743
ultimoo 14y ago
Let's remember the original comment is the top one because it was voted so by the community.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- bjourne 14y ago
  Isn't the idea to upvote useful and interesting comments? A message can be of value even if you greatly disagree with the content of it.
  - eggnet 14y ago
    Are you suggesting that this is what people should do, which might be a nice sentiment, but not particularly relevant to the issue at hand. Or are you suggesting this is what people actually do, to the point of upvoting a comment past all others to the number 1 position. In this second case, I think you have a long way to go to prove your point.
- gojomo 14y ago
  Also remember that the top comment position often goes to a 'contra' position with regard to the story. The reasons for this are many: the supporters have already upvoted the headline; those drawn into any comment thread are disproportionately those with some qualifying/contentious point to make; commenters in general may skew to skeptical/negative viewpoints compared to all community readers. Relative ranking of comments are not opinion polls and should not be construed as such. 'The HN community' is rarely of one measurable mind about anything. Finally, caring much about what the net-total click-voting is on any particular item may be a sign of misplaced priorities or insecurities. What's right and what's good is not dependent on anyone's polling.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
I don't seem to have commented on those threads. But if I had, most of my thoughts now are similar to how they were then. Fully in support of his goals. Mixed feelings about his methods. Thinking that civil disobedience gains some of its moral authority from being willing to pay a price. But that the price in this case was completely out of proportion to the violation. Thinking that the feds never should have been involved. Pretty much where I am now, with the added anger/pain about a young man who had already contributed more to the world than most people ever will being hounded to death in a showcase prosecution.
- specialist 14y ago
  The Truth about Aaron Swartz’s "Crime" http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/ http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartz... "If I had ... been asked ... whether Aaron’s actions were “wrong”, I would probably have replied that what Aaron did would better be described as “inconsiderate”. In the same way it is inconsiderate ... to download lots of files on shared wifi or to spider Wikipedia too quickly, but none of these actions should lead to a young person being hounded for years and haunted by the possibility of a 35 year sentence."
monksy 14y ago
An unforseen event will make you regret critising [Apple/SteveJobs/Qualcomm/bananas]. In otherwords... stop trying to assign blame to someone for this. We didn't know his intention, nor is anyone directly responsible for it.. It sucks that he killed himself, but its not something you could have prevented unless you were there.
ameen 14y ago
It isn't just Ed's comment that contrasts, most prolific commenters' tone was downright acerbic. Some calling him to face what he was directly responsible for and some going as far as siding with the prosecution.

by kyro 14y ago

danem 14y ago

Where is the contrast? edw519's past remarks remain consistent with the one you've linked to in your comment. Expressing the idea that Aaron should be expected take responsibility for his actions does not imply any ill will on edw519's part. Why does this issue have to be made into something so polarizing? With many here, it's either you believe Aaron should've been able to walk away scot-free, or you support an oppressive, overreaching, corrupt government, and the efforts to limit free access to information. Isn't it?

tptacek 14y ago
Does anyone here who has paid any attention to Ed whatsoever believe he would have written that comment had he known that Aaron had already been financially ruined by an overzealous prosecution that had confronted him with a dilemma of pleading guilty to 13 felonies and spending 6 months in prison or taking a crap-shot at 6-7 years in prison? NOBODY KNEW THESE DETAILS AT THE TIME. Aaron was apparently prevented from sharing them. They are shocking. It is not reasonable to get angry at people for reasoning through questions and failing to account for secret information.
- jspthrowaway2 14y ago
  I think that's part of the point, as someone else said; that we should reserve such stark judgment with the expectation that we don't know all the facts. Ed was pretty clear in his opinion, but probably would have held a different one had he known all the facts. To be honest, that supports the idea that he (and I; I agreed quietly) was wrong at the time. I've taken that lesson to heart personally, just from this thread alone.
- kyro 14y ago
  No, but he did assume he was asking for funds simply because he wasn't manning up. How many hundreds read/upvoted and made the same assumption? He should've held his judgment, especially with the weight he carries around here. I've been reading his comments for years. I know he's a good guy, but I still think it was a stupid comment to make.
  - citricsquid 14y ago
    No, but he did assume he was asking for funds simply because he wasn't manning up How can any comment ever be made on the internet about something happening then if every commenter is expected to a) assume they know very little of the situation b) not make judgement c) later be held accountable for what they've said based on information not known at the time? Do people need to start including disclaimers when they comment? "This comment is based on my understanding of the situation as presented by the article and would be revised if new things come to light that are not included in this article"?
    - thaumaturgy 14y ago
      I don't understand this sentiment at all. What's wrong with simply not commenting? HN isn't a semi-private coffee shop; this whole post illustrates quite nicely that what is said here is public and long-lasting. Let's try this on for a little more discomfort: what do you think the odds are that Aaron himself read the comments of a few threads posted here about his case? Your entire argument here seems predicated upon people absolutely needing to comment on things that they have no special knowledge of. I don't think that's very defensible.
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        > what do you think the odds are that Aaron himself read the comments of a few threads posted here about his case? About 100% or so. That's the bit that hurts the most. The simple solution is this: If you're going to say something positive, absent information feel free to do so. On the other hand, if you're going to say something negative you'd better make damn sure you know what it is that you're talking about. If you don't those words might take on a life of their own at some unspecified point in the future.
- anu_gupta 14y ago
  So, instead of saying nothing, why did he feel compelled to tell Aaron to 'man up'? I have no idea why you're making excuses for him based on his not understanding the situation. Can't he speak for himself?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- juiceandjuice 14y ago
  No, but it's reasonable to assume those details, while secret, were plausible in a system that has time and again proved itself irrational and unfair. You are asking people to not jump to conclusions about people who jumped to conclusions.
- btilly 14y ago
  The most important lesson that I have learned from this whole incident is that defending yourself from a federal lawsuit AVERAGES $1.5 million. I had no idea it was that high. I think few of us did. If I had seen that conversation (I missed it) and known that fact back then (I didn't), I'd have definitely corrected Ed at that point. Also shocking is that the purported punishment is so far out of line with what people have gotten in the past. Based on previous examples like Robert Morris (accidentally shut down most of the Internet) and Randal Schwartz (cracked passwords for many accounts at Intel - yes I'm aware of the extenuating circumstances) I would not have expected any jail time to be involved for this "crime". That shocking discrepancy is why I was so fast to sign the petition to fire this particular prosecutor.

baak 14y ago

Why is that a contrast? He didn't support what Aaron allegedly did, so he should be happy that Aaron is dead?

justin66 14y ago
> Why is that a contrast? I'm honestly baffled by this question. He didn't just not support what Aaron did, he treated him badly when he requested help and discouraged others from helping. ("man up?" it's difficult to be more contemptuous in so few words.) After reading that original post I wouldn't have called this newer post a contrast. I would have just assumed that his "OH NO" post was an expression of sarcasm from a very, very mean person. I am happy to assume that others are correct and that this probably isn't the case, but still, the contrast is very clear.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  > I would have just assumed that his "OH NO" post was an expression of sarcasm from a very, very mean person. It isn't, please take my word for it. Ed is definitely one of the good guys and mean is an adjective I'd never ever use to refer to him. He's helped countless people here with his insights and care and I'm pretty sure that if he could take that stuff back that he would do so. Words said carelessly can come back to haunt you, the only way to avoid that is to never speak, or to only speak in weasel words. Ed is not very good at weasel words and I consider that a good thing.
  - justin66 14y ago
    As I said, I'm happy to assume the best here, and that you're correct. I _do_ find the need people have to defend the indefensible (namely his original post) troubling, but I suppose it's not my problem...
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      I am not defending the words, I'm defending the person.

glhaynes 14y ago

I'm not sure why: edw519 could easily and reasonably think that what Aaron did was wrong while being very sad that he committed suicide.

oinksoft 14y ago
A more cynical observation is that users with high "karma" point totals earn this by parroting the majority opinion or otherwise treating comment threads as a game.
- jspthrowaway2 14y ago
  Some users get upvoted fairly quickly by username alone, too. Think pg, edw519, patio11, tptacek; I've noticed comments from them will have upvotes in seconds, regardless of content. It's just name recognition, for better or worse. pg could probably leave a comment saying only "This is a comment." and get a hundred points of karma off it. (I'd pay him to try.) So, to an outside observer, you might suggest that these users game Hacker News but the real answer is that they have an audience. It's debatable whether that's their fault, on a case-by-case basis, though. Then you could probably say it goes the other way: a large part of the community feels a certain way because Ed says so (in the top position), or Thomas says so. I've noticed the atmosphere of a thread change after a comment from a "well-known" person is left, rather rapidly on occasion. The momentum of a community like Hacker News is an interesting study, and although I didn't get an opportunity to watch the thread under the microscope, I bet a large part of it was shaped by Ed's comment. Recently I've learned how Hacker News threads are living organisms, and I've noticed the impact of the commentary that I make. If you pay close attention, you'll be surprised at how the thread evolves and grows, particularly based upon what's in the top position.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - pygy_ 14y ago
    Not only they get free upvotes, but the people who disagree with them sometimes get free downvotes. See here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5033743 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5033743

ultimoo 14y ago

Let's remember the original comment is the top one because it was voted so by the community.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
bjourne 14y ago
Isn't the idea to upvote useful and interesting comments? A message can be of value even if you greatly disagree with the content of it.
- eggnet 14y ago
  Are you suggesting that this is what people should do, which might be a nice sentiment, but not particularly relevant to the issue at hand. Or are you suggesting this is what people actually do, to the point of upvoting a comment past all others to the number 1 position. In this second case, I think you have a long way to go to prove your point.
gojomo 14y ago
Also remember that the top comment position often goes to a 'contra' position with regard to the story. The reasons for this are many: the supporters have already upvoted the headline; those drawn into any comment thread are disproportionately those with some qualifying/contentious point to make; commenters in general may skew to skeptical/negative viewpoints compared to all community readers. Relative ranking of comments are not opinion polls and should not be construed as such. 'The HN community' is rarely of one measurable mind about anything. Finally, caring much about what the net-total click-voting is on any particular item may be a sign of misplaced priorities or insecurities. What's right and what's good is not dependent on anyone's polling.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

I don't seem to have commented on those threads. But if I had, most of my thoughts now are similar to how they were then. Fully in support of his goals. Mixed feelings about his methods. Thinking that civil disobedience gains some of its moral authority from being willing to pay a price. But that the price in this case was completely out of proportion to the violation. Thinking that the feds never should have been involved. Pretty much where I am now, with the added anger/pain about a young man who had already contributed more to the world than most people ever will being hounded to death in a showcase prosecution.

specialist 14y ago
The Truth about Aaron Swartz’s "Crime" http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/ http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartz... "If I had ... been asked ... whether Aaron’s actions were “wrong”, I would probably have replied that what Aaron did would better be described as “inconsiderate”. In the same way it is inconsiderate ... to download lots of files on shared wifi or to spider Wikipedia too quickly, but none of these actions should lead to a young person being hounded for years and haunted by the possibility of a 35 year sentence."

monksy 14y ago

An unforseen event will make you regret critising [Apple/SteveJobs/Qualcomm/bananas]. In otherwords... stop trying to assign blame to someone for this. We didn't know his intention, nor is anyone directly responsible for it.. It sucks that he killed himself, but its not something you could have prevented unless you were there.

ameen 14y ago

It isn't just Ed's comment that contrasts, most prolific commenters' tone was downright acerbic. Some calling him to face what he was directly responsible for and some going as far as siding with the prosecution.