5 ms·

Perhaps, you misunderstand my original intentions. I'm not trying to stop the propagation of things I believe to be wrong. I have no idea if it was the trial or

• Dylan16807 14y ago
  But suicide never stops being a problem. So your plan is to.. lie to people forever? In security research terms, let them keep buying onity locks, because we don't want people to know how to break onity locks and steal/hurt? It's not the only factor but as jlgreco said it's the "sack of bricks that broke the camels back"
  • koide 14y ago
    The point is that WE DON'T KNOW and CANNOT KNOW what his thoughts were when he was tying the rope around his neck. Stop acting as if depression was logical.
    • Dylan16807 14y ago
      It's very true that you can't be sure. But it's definitely a notable factor. People don't make important decisions based on a single reason. Suicide isn't special here. And your argument is completely unrelated to what I was objecting to, which is the idea that admitting influences on suicide must be stopped because it's badthink and could cause more suicide.
      • koide 14y ago
        The problem is not admitting influences, of course there always are triggers, be them external or internal. The problem is quoting a single influence as the only or primary cause, especially if it's an external trigger, as that can motivate other depressed people to go over the line. And that's why suicide is indeed special here, but in a different sense: it's special because random careless talk on a forum can be such a trigger, or be the seed of a future trigger. Of course one cannot be held accountable for such an event, but given it's simple and free to avoid simplifying the causes of suicide, why not avoid it?
        • AnthonyMouse 14y ago
          >given it's simple and free to avoid simplifying the causes of suicide, why not avoid it? It isn't free though. It's de facto censorship. Aaron Swartz is dead. People want to know why. People want to make sure something like this doesn't happen again to someone else. To do that on a rational basis, you have to understand the cause. It appears quite likely that the cause, or at least a very large contributing factor, was this prosecution by the DoJ. What they did was unacceptable. If nothing is done they will do it again, and again, and again. How can we do anything about it if we can't even talk about it? I get what you're trying to say. It isn't sensible to commit suicide just because you're in a bad place. But you're arguing like all people have to do is shut up and everything will be fine. Not talking about it doesn't get it fixed.
          • koide 14y ago
            I'm not at all arguing that shutting up will make everything be fine. I'm arguing that mentioning the most logical trigger as a sure main/only cause for the suicide, besides being fallacious, can potentially cause more harm than good. We sure must not accept what is regularly being done in prosecutions, but not because someone died, rather because it's a policy of terror instead of application of justice.
            • AnthonyMouse 14y ago
              >We sure must not accept what is regularly being done in prosecutions, but not because someone died, rather because it's a policy of terror instead of application of justice. I understand. I just don't think it's that simple. A major part of making normal people understand the severity of this policy of terror is to understand what its victims feel. You can't just separate the two so easily and say "excessive prosecutions are bad, go fight them" -- to do that we still have to convince people why they're so bad, to make them understand what the victims of the justice system feel, and "they're so egregious they're capable of driving good people to suicide" is a very powerful fact if you can show it. It's the kind of thing that can make the difference in whether it gets fixed or not.