5 ms·

Aaron did something wrong [/edit: wrong in the eyes of the law: illegal, poor word choice/], something that he knew was wrong and that is an accepted fact, corr

Aaron did something wrong [/edit: wrong in the eyes of the law: illegal, poor word choice/], something that he knew was wrong and that is an accepted fact, correct? If he did something he knew was wrong then what edw519 said is right, he should "man up" and accept the consequences, as everyone should do when they do something wrong. The problem is what has come to light since that post was made, it has come to light that Aaron was not being held accountable for his "actions", he was being used. He was being made into an example, he was being turned into a tool to help peoples careers. This is what is important and why we should have supported him. At the time nobody knew what he was facing, we know now and I'm sure if everyone here could go back they would support him more. Go back to the thread, forget everything you know about the case and situation and read the link (the appeal page on Aaron's website) and then the comments in the thread and form an opinion. It won't match what you're saying here because what you're thinking about now (and holding edw519 to) was not known at the time.

danielweber 14y ago
I think I remember that thread, and I remember thinking of typing "criminal defenses, guilty or innocent, are extremely expensive, and this is by no means a good thing" but I guess I didn't pull the trigger and say it. In retrospect, I wish I'd made it, and I also wish I'd said "even though I consider Aaron in the wrong, I'm still donating $5 so he knows that other people know he's alive, and I encourage those who are on his side to donate as well." Lots of donations, even if small in amount, would have at least helped him not feel alone. Depression sucks.
thaumaturgy 14y ago
See, here's the problem. In one sentence you're arguing that he should "accept the consequences", and in literally the very next sentence, you're describing how bad the consequences ended up being. That is what is wrong with saying, "just accept the consequences", when you have no damn idea what the consequences are.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  A story and the reality are always different. The story as presented to people at the time was Aaron had done something (legally) wrong and was in trouble for doing it, some people believed what he did was for a just cause (education material should be free) and others didn't. If the people reading the story at the time were expected to act on the situation by donating, why is it wrong for them to act in the form of a comment? How can it be fair to say people should have donated based on their understanding of the situation but not be able to comment on the situation? Every single person in that comment thread is just as guilty of wrong doing if edw519 is guilty of any, because they all formed an opinion around something they knew very little of. It just so happens that the opinion edw519 expressed is unfortunately one that is at odds with the reality of the situation.
  - thaumaturgy 14y ago
    First, just to be really clear about this: Ed is pretty much the very last example of bad behavior that I would ever look to on HN. He's a heck of a nice guy, and I wish he wasn't the one being discussed here. That said, surely you can acknowledge that there's a difference between donating and posting a comment?
    - citricsquid 14y ago
      oh of course, they're very different things that have very different motivations and very different results, what I'm trying to argue is that they are both actions that come from an interest in the subject at hand. If you act on something (regardless of the specifics of that action) then you're making a commitment to that subject. The point is every single person that acted on that post was doing it under exactly the same idea, "I have read about this situation and based on what I have read I believe x to be (true / false) and therefore I (support / don't support) Aaron" so when someone said "I believe that Aaron does not deserve to be bearing the burden here, I am donating $10 to his fund" they were making exactly the same assumptions as edw519 made when he said "I believe that Aaron is responsible for this situation and therefore should be responsible for the consequences". The only difference is edw519 is on the wrong side of the outcome. Those that donated didn't know that Aaron was in some serious shit way beyond what anyone imagined, just like edw519 didn't know that Aaron was in some serious shit way beyond what he imagined. If everyone took the line you're talking about, "I don't know the full story (because nobody ever can) so I'm not going to pass any judgement" Aaron would not have been the recipient of any donations, because Aaron could have been more in the wrong than edw519 thought! Maybe the prosecution had evidence that showed Aaron intended to rip people off, or commit a terrible crime? I don't want to be behind supporting that! I had better just ignore everything.
nostrademons 14y ago
I'm not entirely certain that Aaron knew he was doing something wrong, or, for that matter, whether he was in fact doing something wrong. It seems he made little effort to cover his tracks and pretty much acted out in the open. And from what I've heard from friends who've met him in person - Aaron was brilliant, idealistic, a nice guy, and hopelessly naive about how the world actually works.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure that he believed strongly that he was doing something right and that he must have been very upset at being persecuted in the way that he was for doing what was right.
- dyno12345 14y ago
  If he didn't think he was doing anything wrong, why didn't he just ask permission?
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    There is this bit: "It is better to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission". This especially holds true if you're up against what we'll loosely label the establishment here, especially if said establishment is capable of marshalling serious force against you. Once it's done it's done, but during the execution phase just getting the job over with is often the smartest course of action. See the PACER incident for how that can play out when it works. And I guess the JSTOR one for when it doesn't.
    - dyno12345 14y ago
      I'm not sure that this forgiveness vs. permission rule works well with civil or criminal law...
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        It has worked well for me so far. Of course it always does until it no longer works so this is just another instance of survivor bias. Unfortunately for poor Aaron it did not work out well for him.
derleth 14y ago
> accept the consequences Everyone has to accept the consequences. Reality doesn't allow you not to. There's no way to 'log out' of the real world; the most you can do is kill yourself, and then your suicide becomes the consequence. Whenever someone says "accept the consequences" they mean "accept the consequences in silence", as opposed to accepting them under vocal protest and attempting to challenge them. When the consequences are unjust, accepting them in silence is acquiescing to the injustice, which only serves to perpetuate it. Merely accepting the consequences is inevitable; accepting the consequences in silence is a choice, and it is not always the best choice.
mikeash 14y ago
Aaron (supposedly) did something illegal. Whether his actions were wrong is an entirely different question, and one that is highly subjective.
- mpyne 14y ago
  And what's more, it's entirely possible to feel that Aaron's actions actually were wrong and yet still feel that the prosecution was overbearing.

danielweber 14y ago

I think I remember that thread, and I remember thinking of typing "criminal defenses, guilty or innocent, are extremely expensive, and this is by no means a good thing" but I guess I didn't pull the trigger and say it. In retrospect, I wish I'd made it, and I also wish I'd said "even though I consider Aaron in the wrong, I'm still donating $5 so he knows that other people know he's alive, and I encourage those who are on his side to donate as well." Lots of donations, even if small in amount, would have at least helped him not feel alone. Depression sucks.

thaumaturgy 14y ago

See, here's the problem. In one sentence you're arguing that he should "accept the consequences", and in literally the very next sentence, you're describing how bad the consequences ended up being. That is what is wrong with saying, "just accept the consequences", when you have no damn idea what the consequences are.

citricsquid 14y ago
A story and the reality are always different. The story as presented to people at the time was Aaron had done something (legally) wrong and was in trouble for doing it, some people believed what he did was for a just cause (education material should be free) and others didn't. If the people reading the story at the time were expected to act on the situation by donating, why is it wrong for them to act in the form of a comment? How can it be fair to say people should have donated based on their understanding of the situation but not be able to comment on the situation? Every single person in that comment thread is just as guilty of wrong doing if edw519 is guilty of any, because they all formed an opinion around something they knew very little of. It just so happens that the opinion edw519 expressed is unfortunately one that is at odds with the reality of the situation.
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  First, just to be really clear about this: Ed is pretty much the very last example of bad behavior that I would ever look to on HN. He's a heck of a nice guy, and I wish he wasn't the one being discussed here. That said, surely you can acknowledge that there's a difference between donating and posting a comment?
  - citricsquid 14y ago
    oh of course, they're very different things that have very different motivations and very different results, what I'm trying to argue is that they are both actions that come from an interest in the subject at hand. If you act on something (regardless of the specifics of that action) then you're making a commitment to that subject. The point is every single person that acted on that post was doing it under exactly the same idea, "I have read about this situation and based on what I have read I believe x to be (true / false) and therefore I (support / don't support) Aaron" so when someone said "I believe that Aaron does not deserve to be bearing the burden here, I am donating $10 to his fund" they were making exactly the same assumptions as edw519 made when he said "I believe that Aaron is responsible for this situation and therefore should be responsible for the consequences". The only difference is edw519 is on the wrong side of the outcome. Those that donated didn't know that Aaron was in some serious shit way beyond what anyone imagined, just like edw519 didn't know that Aaron was in some serious shit way beyond what he imagined. If everyone took the line you're talking about, "I don't know the full story (because nobody ever can) so I'm not going to pass any judgement" Aaron would not have been the recipient of any donations, because Aaron could have been more in the wrong than edw519 thought! Maybe the prosecution had evidence that showed Aaron intended to rip people off, or commit a terrible crime? I don't want to be behind supporting that! I had better just ignore everything.

nostrademons 14y ago

I'm not entirely certain that Aaron knew he was doing something wrong, or, for that matter, whether he was in fact doing something wrong. It seems he made little effort to cover his tracks and pretty much acted out in the open. And from what I've heard from friends who've met him in person - Aaron was brilliant, idealistic, a nice guy, and hopelessly naive about how the world actually works.

jacquesm 14y ago
I'm pretty sure that he believed strongly that he was doing something right and that he must have been very upset at being persecuted in the way that he was for doing what was right.
dyno12345 14y ago
If he didn't think he was doing anything wrong, why didn't he just ask permission?
- jacquesm 14y ago
  There is this bit: "It is better to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission". This especially holds true if you're up against what we'll loosely label the establishment here, especially if said establishment is capable of marshalling serious force against you. Once it's done it's done, but during the execution phase just getting the job over with is often the smartest course of action. See the PACER incident for how that can play out when it works. And I guess the JSTOR one for when it doesn't.
  - dyno12345 14y ago
    I'm not sure that this forgiveness vs. permission rule works well with civil or criminal law...
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      It has worked well for me so far. Of course it always does until it no longer works so this is just another instance of survivor bias. Unfortunately for poor Aaron it did not work out well for him.

derleth 14y ago

> accept the consequences Everyone has to accept the consequences. Reality doesn't allow you not to. There's no way to 'log out' of the real world; the most you can do is kill yourself, and then your suicide becomes the consequence. Whenever someone says "accept the consequences" they mean "accept the consequences in silence", as opposed to accepting them under vocal protest and attempting to challenge them. When the consequences are unjust, accepting them in silence is acquiescing to the injustice, which only serves to perpetuate it. Merely accepting the consequences is inevitable; accepting the consequences in silence is a choice, and it is not always the best choice.

mikeash 14y ago

Aaron (supposedly) did something illegal. Whether his actions were wrong is an entirely different question, and one that is highly subjective.

mpyne 14y ago
And what's more, it's entirely possible to feel that Aaron's actions actually were wrong and yet still feel that the prosecution was overbearing.