13 ms·

I think this is the hardest part. Ortiz is obviously disgusting, but she's not really different than anyone else in her position. These kinds of tactics are e

by moxie 14y ago

I think this is the hardest part. Ortiz is obviously disgusting, but she's not really different than anyone else in her position. These kinds of tactics are employed every day. So what do we do? I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge. In a world where we typically have no agency, it's satisfying to make someone like her uncomfortable. But on another level, it's frustrating that it's impossible to put the system on trial. It's unfortunate that by demonizing Ortiz, we play right into the hands of those who appointed her (and will appoint her successor) by making this out to be the fault of an individual. It makes it easier for them to act shocked, replace her, and be done with it.

wavesounds 14y ago
I think that making an example out of someone really can work to effect the actions of a larger group. Fight fire with fire.
warmwaffles 14y ago
> I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge. Yes and unfortunately we (everyone else) are trying to do the same "driving a tack with a sledge hammer". Hopefully, this will draw light to a bad judicial system, but also I hope it brings to light that public funded research papers should be public to everyone, for free. Since we do pay for the electricity, facilities, and salaries.
- JasonFruit 14y ago
  I had to go make sure that it was you and not me: it was "demonization", not "demonetization".
  - warmwaffles 14y ago
    No I just copy pasted what he said, and it appears he corrected his mistake. So I'll do the same.
MichaelSalib 14y ago
I get that vengeance can be satisfying, but it means sending a message. And the message that US attorneys are going to hear is "don't fuck with young affluent white hackers with powerful friends". I never met Swartz, but I'd be surprised if he'd have wanted his legacy to be people that look like him getting a pass while everyone else suffers the same as before.
- pekk 14y ago
  There is no reason to suppose that this will be taken as a reason not to prosecute white people. The specific act and its context are clearly more important.
  - MichaelSalib 14y ago
    In international relations, there's a whole literature devoted to signalling: looking at how states send signals to other states. There's a huge amount of evidence showing that the signals received are very often different from the ones transmitted.
    - pekk 14y ago
      The race of the defendant isn't a salient part of this. We don't have to wait for a black Aaron Swartz to act, on the far-fetched premise that the only thing that will be noticed by prosecutors was his color. This is a far-fetched idea. Federal prosecutors are certainly intelligent enough to understand many of the factors which make this sensitive, including a suicide, internet backing, the specific alleged crime and the open access issue. Without deciding that the whole problem is that you can't prosecute white people. So many white people are prosecuted without fanfare that this would be an impossibly irrational conclusion to draw.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        Ah, but what good is concern trolling if you can't find a way to cram race into the discussion too? If you aren't going to do it properly, you may as well not even bother! /s
smsm42 14y ago
At least we can hope the successor will tread more carefully when it comes to prosecuting somebody that is obviously not a hardened criminal but an activist going too far in their zeal to correct the perceived injustice. Small win, but better than nothing.
monochromatic 14y ago
Why is Ortiz "obviously disgusting"?
- danenania 14y ago
  Because she abused her official capacity to hound a much more honorable and talented person than herself to the point of suicide? Honestly, for all the jaded and cynical people trying to play 'the adult' by defending the corrupt and immoral actions of the justice system and its officials based on legal technicalities--you don't come across as knowledgeable or reasonable, just spineless and enabling. Hiding behind rules and technicalities to commit evil is the oldest and most cowardly trick in the book.
  - monochromatic 14y ago
    Have you read Orrin Kerr's two posts? They're long, but absolutely worth reading. It is by no means clear that Ortiz is some kind of demon.
    - danenania 14y ago
      Kerr's posts make the case that her actions were legal and conventional, not moral. I'm not claiming she's a demon. It is very common for otherwise decent people to do evil in their institutional roles. But history shows that it's very very dangerous to permit this as an excuse.
ahna 14y ago
I've seen this sentiment expressed over and over here this week, and it's really frustrating to read. Want to stop people speeding on a road? Issue tickets. In some sense, that's not fair -- people still do it and get away with it, why single out one person? But having a non-zero possibility of a negative consequence is a net disincentive to the behavior. Even if it's enforced somewhat randomly. Hypothetically: let's suppose that our goal is to stop "the system" of prosecutors threatening multiple felonies against citizens for behavior that most other citizens do not consider worthy of a consequence as serious as jail time/felony conviction. Let us also assume that some prosecutors do this to get prestige/promotions. If there are well known examples of positive consequences, and no examples of negative consequences, then the incentives for our hypothetical prosecutor are pretty clear. It seems fairly obvious that if Ortiz and Heynmann face seriously negative career consequences, it changes the cost/benefit calculation for other prosecutors, even those whose main concern is career advancement. There aren't many ways to hold public officials accountable besides public outcry. I do agree that the root problem is the human psyche. We have all kinds of bugs/heuristics (depending on how you look at it) for social behavior. These lead to group behaviors that us abstract thinkers find frustrating. Unfortunately, this isn't going to get fixed until 20+ years, and that's if you're on the optimistic side about transhumanism. So in the meantime we have to use the tools (and brains) that we have.

by moxie 14y ago

wavesounds 14y ago

I think that making an example out of someone really can work to effect the actions of a larger group. Fight fire with fire.

warmwaffles 14y ago

> I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge. Yes and unfortunately we (everyone else) are trying to do the same "driving a tack with a sledge hammer". Hopefully, this will draw light to a bad judicial system, but also I hope it brings to light that public funded research papers should be public to everyone, for free. Since we do pay for the electricity, facilities, and salaries.

JasonFruit 14y ago
I had to go make sure that it was you and not me: it was "demonization", not "demonetization".
- warmwaffles 14y ago
  No I just copy pasted what he said, and it appears he corrected his mistake. So I'll do the same.

MichaelSalib 14y ago

I get that vengeance can be satisfying, but it means sending a message. And the message that US attorneys are going to hear is "don't fuck with young affluent white hackers with powerful friends". I never met Swartz, but I'd be surprised if he'd have wanted his legacy to be people that look like him getting a pass while everyone else suffers the same as before.

pekk 14y ago
There is no reason to suppose that this will be taken as a reason not to prosecute white people. The specific act and its context are clearly more important.
- MichaelSalib 14y ago
  In international relations, there's a whole literature devoted to signalling: looking at how states send signals to other states. There's a huge amount of evidence showing that the signals received are very often different from the ones transmitted.
  - pekk 14y ago
    The race of the defendant isn't a salient part of this. We don't have to wait for a black Aaron Swartz to act, on the far-fetched premise that the only thing that will be noticed by prosecutors was his color. This is a far-fetched idea. Federal prosecutors are certainly intelligent enough to understand many of the factors which make this sensitive, including a suicide, internet backing, the specific alleged crime and the open access issue. Without deciding that the whole problem is that you can't prosecute white people. So many white people are prosecuted without fanfare that this would be an impossibly irrational conclusion to draw.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Ah, but what good is concern trolling if you can't find a way to cram race into the discussion too? If you aren't going to do it properly, you may as well not even bother! /s

smsm42 14y ago

At least we can hope the successor will tread more carefully when it comes to prosecuting somebody that is obviously not a hardened criminal but an activist going too far in their zeal to correct the perceived injustice. Small win, but better than nothing.

monochromatic 14y ago

Why is Ortiz "obviously disgusting"?

danenania 14y ago
Because she abused her official capacity to hound a much more honorable and talented person than herself to the point of suicide? Honestly, for all the jaded and cynical people trying to play 'the adult' by defending the corrupt and immoral actions of the justice system and its officials based on legal technicalities--you don't come across as knowledgeable or reasonable, just spineless and enabling. Hiding behind rules and technicalities to commit evil is the oldest and most cowardly trick in the book.
- monochromatic 14y ago
  Have you read Orrin Kerr's two posts? They're long, but absolutely worth reading. It is by no means clear that Ortiz is some kind of demon.
  - danenania 14y ago
    Kerr's posts make the case that her actions were legal and conventional, not moral. I'm not claiming she's a demon. It is very common for otherwise decent people to do evil in their institutional roles. But history shows that it's very very dangerous to permit this as an excuse.

ahna 14y ago

I've seen this sentiment expressed over and over here this week, and it's really frustrating to read. Want to stop people speeding on a road? Issue tickets. In some sense, that's not fair -- people still do it and get away with it, why single out one person? But having a non-zero possibility of a negative consequence is a net disincentive to the behavior. Even if it's enforced somewhat randomly. Hypothetically: let's suppose that our goal is to stop "the system" of prosecutors threatening multiple felonies against citizens for behavior that most other citizens do not consider worthy of a consequence as serious as jail time/felony conviction. Let us also assume that some prosecutors do this to get prestige/promotions. If there are well known examples of positive consequences, and no examples of negative consequences, then the incentives for our hypothetical prosecutor are pretty clear. It seems fairly obvious that if Ortiz and Heynmann face seriously negative career consequences, it changes the cost/benefit calculation for other prosecutors, even those whose main concern is career advancement. There aren't many ways to hold public officials accountable besides public outcry. I do agree that the root problem is the human psyche. We have all kinds of bugs/heuristics (depending on how you look at it) for social behavior. These lead to group behaviors that us abstract thinkers find frustrating. Unfortunately, this isn't going to get fixed until 20+ years, and that's if you're on the optimistic side about transhumanism. So in the meantime we have to use the tools (and brains) that we have.