Here is the HN thread from back then. Some of it makes for pretty uncomfortable reading right now.
1) I don't think Aaron made more than six figures from Reddit. Soon after acquisition, he went on walkabout, and then he got canned. He probably got some money, but did not vest most of his share. So, don't worry - he's poor enough for your pity and support.
2) As to your second line of thought, that we should punish him because he consciously broke the law... I disagree with anyone on this forum who says that Aaron didn't know the potential consequences of his actions, and therefore should not be punished. But I also disagree with you.
This was a victimless crime, and the only ones pursuing it are some relentless G-men. Where is the corporation or person that has been wronged? Who, in the public, wants to pillory Aaron? What did Aaron gain? Do we really need to make an example of him, so this doesn't happen again? Is this really good a use of taxes?
My reaction is just shame and disgust... I mean, really? This brilliant kid is going to jail because of civil disobedience? Just so we can show there is still a book than can be thrown?
The prosecution's perspective is warped by incentives - we should never care about how prosecutors feel or think - they are just tools of the people. Prosecutors need convictions, promotions, and press to succeed at their jobs. At this point, it's not JSTOR who wants this case prosecuted, it's just government agents. And they are just going through the motions.
It may be up to a jury to do the right thing - they stand a better change of being unbiased, thankfully for Aaron.
What's terrifying to me is that I could have ended up doing the same thing. You're on a fast network, you have a bunch of PDFs you want to crawl, you're particularly handy with python... why not? It's in the same ballpark as doing a site-rip.
Even so, these careless and unfounded words must have hurt tremendously, much more so than had nothing been said at all.
It angers me to think that HN could have contributed in any way to the dark place Aaron ended up reaching. More so because many of those comments bothered me at the time and I neither knew Aaron nor the severity of the situation. They were unwarranted even in absence of the full story.
Anyone who's suffering should avoid negative sentiment or you'll just find more reasons to be depressed.
It was a fundraising post for legal defense. Not a plea of mental health distress. People expressed negative opinions of the request, some in light of the presumed financial position of the defendant. Are we seriously discussing review of those remarks simply for their psychological supportiveness?
I don't see where it matters if you can tell if someone will bring drama or not. It is pretty disrespectful to assume that someone making strong/emotional statements is merely a drama queen. They usually have their reasons for feeling strongly.
The women I have hung out with haven't taken offense when they had the phrase used on them, and one did use it on me (it was something I needed to hear at the time although I was in a bit of a snit for a couple of days because of her saying it).
Thinking about it, there are a lot of phrases and ways to express things that I wouldn't use on a message board or to people I didn't know well. To the people I know well, I'll use any phrase or approach that I think can reach them.
Also, I do not see and equivalence between "man up" and "get over it". The former is asking a friend to take some responsibility and action, the later is asking them to get beyond their feelings while assigning no responsibility.
There are many factors that could contribute to a power law for karma distribution. One conjecture is that other users tend to "trust" high-karma users and therefore tend to upvote their comments just because they have high karma.
Another is that high-karma users receive gratification from using HN and therefore use it more. Which leads to getting more karma.
Either of the two conjectures I advanced could explain a small number of users having a disproportionate amount of Karma.
High-karma users have followers. I've left comments on very old stories in out-of-the-way places and found them voted up. So we accumulate karma faster in part because people are simply more likely to see our posts, because they go out of their way to do so.
high karma people have a halo effect (while that sounds a little like one of the others ones mentioned) I think it's distinct.
I had an experience the other week with the halo effect as follows.
I was somewhere and struck up a conversation with a man that I believed to be the actual head of a top 10 law firm in the US (a distant relative who I met for the first time). With a private jet, home in Aspen and a few thousand lawyers under him. While I was talking to him, I was noticeably aware of literally how important he seemed on one hand, and how "down to earth" he seemed on the other. (He actually didn't seem that sharp to go with who I believed him to be, in a George Bush kind of way.)
But the halo was still there (I was doubting my instincts all along).
After speaking to him for 45 minutes or so I asked for his card. It turned out that he wasn't the head of the firm, he was the son of the head of the firm (he was a senior partner none the less).
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.
It took some work, but I managed to corner him.
I didn't want to lose this argument because he was trying to make me look foolish when I was technically right. Since he has a lot of street cred, I feared that a lot of people would take his ramblings as correct.
And some did. I got at least three down votes on the first message.
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?
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.
No, but he did assume he was asking for funds simply because he
wasn't manning up
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"?
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.
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.
No discussion mean no learning.
Hindsight is 20/20, and perhaps knowing Aaron was the type who would do something like this would prevent someone from commenting entirely, but it wasn't necessarily a stupid comment to make.
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.
I have no idea why you're making excuses for him based on his not understanding the situation. Can't he speak for himself?
You are asking people to not jump to conclusions about people who jumped to conclusions.
I've taken that lesson to heart personally, just from this thread alone.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
I _do_ find the need people have to defend the indefensible (namely his original post) troubling, but I suppose it's not my problem...
Did you feel bad when Steve Jobs died, even if just for his family and friends? Did you ever say anything critical of Steve Jobs? That doesn't make it a contrast...
You're not reading carefully enough. The post we're discussing goes beyond disagreeing with what Aaron did. That's not the issue. The expression of contempt - "man up" - and the message that asking one's friends for help is a mistake is troubling.
Some calling him to face what he was directly responsible for and some going as far as siding with the prosecution.
It sucks that he killed himself, but its not something you could have prevented unless you were there.
And some of the comments on that submission are just downright acerbic. I'm sure Aaron would've checked them and decided HN wasn't going to help him (honestly after such reaction, why would anyone think otherwise).
And to all those people that suggested seeing things from prosecution's vantage point -- now might be the time to also consider how Aaron might have felt reading those comments.
Personally, I gave up on participating in any kind of activism about 10 years ago, partly because I didn't feel we were getting anywhere and the next generation didn't seem to care. I feel pretty uncomfortable about that now.
It's also mostly fueled by indifference and self-interest, not activism. Most file sharers just don't care that they are breaking the law; they want to do what they want to do. If these laws are to ever change we're going to need to start downloading and sharing on the Capital Steps, or get arrested for printing free books for poor kids. We are going to need to be prepared to go to jail ahead of time, before they decide to come after us. That way people like Aaron who don't have the support network and preparation aren't the only ones facing this.
Unfortunately, in my experience the existing activist networks are not the place to start. The anarchists just want to relive the 70's, labor is watching their power dwindle and is focused myopically on the little that remains, poverty campaigners are burned out from fighting years of losing battles and the Occupy, anti-globalization and professional activists seem perfectly happy to march just to be doing anything at all. Many people can agree on the problems, but few people can agree on the solutions (much less small, concrete steps to get there) and so they don't accomplish anything. In intellectual "property" rights laws, however, I think we have a well-defined problem where direct action could be effective.
There's lots of people they can help fight for now.
I hold a lot of the same views as Aaron. This is especially true in the case of the PACER incident, which is speculated to have been a source of the malice on display from the Justice Department, but I also recognize that a lot of the reasoning presented by edw519 and tptacek (just a couple of examples) is sound. It's entirely possible for there to be sound arguments on both sides of a discussion.
Definitely agree that both sides of an argument can have good points. If you don't see that as being the case here, maybe read this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_..., which is part of the "Politics is the Mind-Killer" series on LessWrong.
> I sincerely hope that he gets the punishment he deserves which should be a firm slap on the wrist. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of him getting any jail time
I'm starting to suspect that HN discussions have a pretty strong snowball effect where it begins to seem like everyone agrees with the early comments near the top.
It sucks that people were so harsh in the first thread. One big takeaway from Aaron's story for me, is that whenever someone is facing federal prosecution, consider that a huge risk factor for stress and mental breakdown, and err on the side of sympathy. This also reaffirms my principle of siding with individual humans (Aaron) over institutions (JSTOR, MIT, DOJ). I'm not out to get anyone if they're the former inflicting a minor institutional flesh wound on the latter.
There are several 'patterns' that have emerged over the years, the snowball is definitely one of them, especially if one of the first commenters is one with name recognition on HN
> This also reaffirms my principle of siding with individual humans (Aaron) over institutions (JSTOR, MIT, DOJ).
I've tried to make that point elsewhere but unsuccessfully.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=79982
"Is Aaron Swartz the Paris Hilton of Web 2.0?"
> I wonder what Swartz will be like when he's 40.
...
EDIT- dcurtis says Aaron is egotistical in his blog posts, as a comment on a post that asks what Aaron has ever done. The parallel to recent threads about dcurtis is eerie, to be honest. It's jarring enough that it should make everyone on all sides of that issue take a step back and get some perspective.
As pg says in that thread, egotism is a common flaw in bright youths. Perhaps some...not tolerance exactly, as guidance away from the flaw is a reasonable response, but maybe a realization that it's to be expected. And in the big picture, maybe it shouldn't really count much against them anyway.
If you are referring to other stuff: What else happened in the last 3 days that bugs you?