Aren't these the people that failed to defend Aaron Swartz?
Well, if they don't, that's still a SINGLE organization to my eyes.
Just because some people there might disagreed at the time, it doesn't absolve the organization.
>Aren't these the people that failed to defend Aaron Swartz?
So no, these aren't the same people. However, it is the same parent organization, but I don't think anyone is disputing that even though that's the strawman you are attacking.
Organizations consist of people. There is some more stuff beyond that -- just some legal documents, buildings, and other assets, but the thing that actually has the agency to drive an organization is people.
>So no, these aren't the same people. However, it is the same parent organization, but I don't think anyone is disputing that even though that's the strawman you are attacking.
They are the same people that worked there and didn't protest publicly about the actions of the organization and/or didn't resign.
So nobody has left or joined MIT since the Aaron Schwartz case?
Even ignoring that detail, I have a lot more respect for people that change an organization from within rather than quit immediately anytime something disagreeable happens. If everyone operated the way you are suggesting, we would essentially have institutions that would never change because nobody with different viewpoints could join.
"I was just following orders" and/or "I disagreed, but I was in the minority" is not an excuse.
Yes is is, both are valid.