Hacker News Reader

> No one is in even a remotely comparable position in 2013 to suppress ideas.

Of course not. That would be weird, as those events lie hundred of years in the past. It is a total different world today. Thinking that those events map one-to-one is far beyond ridiculous. You need to refer to the principle.

The hard truth is, that much of the publicly funded research is kept away from 99,9 % of the people, just so a few can make profits.

Fine, it might make it easier for you to say to yourself, that

> democratically-developed laws

back up your opinion.

But the actual truth is that many laws are written by lobbyists.

Also the laws are and always have been up to interpretation. The prerogative of interpretation is under a constant challenge.

If you think that the current system will be seen as just in 100 years from now you are probably wrong. If we want to accelerate human development we must make sure, that everyone has access to current research, just as we make sure that everyone has access to the modern software due to open source.

Sadly, for every Aaron there are thousands of people with your mindset that chose the way of least resistance. And when I hear those people pitying the ones who are trying to make the world a better place, it makes me angry and sad.

1) You've got the wrong end of the stick mate - it was etherael who tried to make the Galileo comparison - I was pointing out to him how ridiculous that comparison was - and you have mistaken my critique for his original comparison. Aim your criticisms at him.

2) The hard truth is, that much of the publicly funded research is kept away from 99,9 % of the people, just so a few can make profits.

How about you back up that opinion? Because it sounds like reductive hyperbole.

3) the actual truth is that many laws are written by lobbyists.

I would never deny the influence of special interests, and you misconstrue me if you think I do - or if you think I am arguing that current political systems are perfect. I am sick of this false dichotomy that you can only have two opinions on modern democracy - either you are a raving critic who thinks it is all corrupt and shit, or you are a placid simpleton who thinks everything is fine. I take a middle road - I try and see the good and the bad in balance. The harsh black and white perspectives common among e-activists are severely in need of some balance.

4) the laws are and always have been up to interpretation

Yes, of course. Did I argue that this is not the case, or should not be the case? The question is the mechanism through which laws should be reappraised. Aaron Swartz thought reckless, desperate and illegal behaviour was an appropriate mechanism. People like you seem to think that angry crowds of people on the internet demanding the change they want is an appropriate mechanism. I think that careful, focused consideration of all pertinent issues by qualified experts is the most appropriate mechanism. Shocking, I know, but no, I don't think people on the internet tend to come to particularly balanced opinions on political issues. My greatest sin seems to be that this isn't sexy or modern enough - it is after all a mechanism which modern democracies employ all the time. Apparently that makes me one of the "thousands of people... that chose the way of least resistance" (because it sure is a walk in the park venturing and defending my position against the anti-government consensus on Hackernews...)

5) If you think that the current system will be seen as just in 100 years from now you are probably wrong.

Again, this false dichotomy - can I not simultaneously believe that there is a lot of good to be found in the democratic systems we have developed so far, and believe at the same time that there is room for improvement? I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive.

The problem I think is that people today are not particularly educated about how the history of the development of modern political and economic systems, and they have no understanding of how much they have improved on previous formats, and how many benefits we derive from these advances. They are blind to the benefits of what has been achieved, and can only see problems. So they have no perspective.

6) we must make sure, that everyone has access to current research

We must, I would argue, also make sure that we protect the systems of incentives that allows creative work to be done. This to me is the singular arrogance of e-activists - the belief that anyone profiting from creative work are fatcats, that no allowances should be made for creators in making information free, that anyone affected by the actions of e-activists is just a dinosaur, that the world must adapt to them. It's unhealthy. I think if we really want to accelerate human development we must be careful not to succumb without critical scrutiny to the allure of impressive-sounding causes such as open-everything. How often do e-activists question their actions? How often do they say "what if the things I believe in are wrong and damaging?" Not often, from what I can see.

6) when I hear those people pitying the ones who are trying to make the world a better place, it makes me angry and sad.

Oh, get off your damn high horse.

Disappointed? Huh? What on earth are you talking about?

If I refer to someone as a sad little man, it's a fair call that I could be described as disappointed in them, if I misunderstood your position on that I apologise.

Or perhaps did you wake up, find the story about Aaron on HN and become an instant, just-add-hyperbole overnight crusader?

Not exactly, I've always been of the opinion that the state doesn't need to be reformed so much as dismantled, but in terms of being unaware of the situation; no. That's why I've always been of the opinion that the state ought to be dismantled, the constant pain and misery they have historically inflicted on those they are charged to protect and/or represent.

As for: aspects of the modern world which could fairly be described as diseases. Can you elaborate?

I mean basically the things which he spent his life fighting against which ultimately resulted in his tragic end. The way in which he and I differ is that he was an activist that wanted to see institutional reform whereas I do not care to risk anything for anyone and simply wish to see those same institutions entirely dismantled and will absolutely not risk myself in any way to do so precisely because those that do often end up casualty statistics in one way or another.

I don't believe in fighting for humanity, personally I just route around the ridiculousness as much as possible and tolerate and/or divest myself as totally as I am able with regards to the rest. But those are simply two negative views and approaches on situations which as I said can fairly be described as diseases.

It was a clear cut case of a social power deciding to restrict free speech to prevent an idea from even being thought about.

You mean like completely out of proportion prosecutorial aggression to address an issue that the state would instead not like you or anyone else to think too closely about? I disagree, I think they're trying as hard as they can to clamp down on certain ways of thinking, it's precisely the same thing in a different setting.

It is only when he crossed the line into illegal behaviour that he was prosecuted

You say this as if legal and illegal is a meaningful distinction these days, once again I disagree with that, I think it's beyond obvious that there are a very large amount of very stupid laws on the books in a very large variety of countries and I hold no innate respect for any such laws above that which I would hold for rules arbitrarily foisted upon me by a violent and erratic overseer.

- according to open, democratically-developed laws and prosecutorial guidelines - all subject to normal processes of democratic oversight.

Which is, as demonstrated by the magnitude of the horrendous nature of all the things which have been created in precisely the same vein, clearly useless.

The world needed changing then, and it needs it now. Dangerous language in my opinion. Nothing "needs" anything. Deciding that the world "needs" changing means you set up a very rigid condition for success.

Not particularly, I don't care if the world changes or not at the end of the day, That I see things are broken and that I see they are in many ways simply getting worse is more an indication that I should not bother myself with engaging with such a clearly broken system than I should fight harder against it at any risk to myself. That doesn't mean I can't call a spade a spade.

Aaron could have done with a bit of that perspective I reckon. How about you?

If the perspective is that he shouldn't have bothered and shouldn't have put himself at risk to fix the injustices of a people largely foisted by themselves upon themselves, I entirely agree. If the perspective is that one should simply accept that things are all roses and we should simply fall in line and to the best of our ability follow the instructions of our rulers because although they may be flawed in a great many ways, we are responsible for them because we are part of a population which has en masse been stupid enough to allow the situation to develop, I couldn't disagree more.

Right, well, ignoring the fact that you dodged the question of what you meant specifically by diseases...

Yes, you misread the word sad. I wrote with pity. Sorry you didn't pick that up.

I've always been of the opinion that the state doesn't need to be reformed so much as dismantled

Well... I think you're ignorant and entitled. Basically. Sorry.

You mean like completely out of proportion prosecutorial aggression to address an issue that the state would instead not like you or anyone else to think too closely about?

No, I mean like the Pope decided that he didn't like Galileo and he didn't like the idea of the Copernican system, and he banned the very idea. One guy stood up and literally said "No one is allowed to believe or talk about idea A. Idea B is the only truth."

The idea that the prosecution of Aaron is in any way comparable to the situation in Counter-Reformation Italy is just... completely retarded. There's no other word for it. If you really believe that, then you're stupid. I'm sorry. It's not "precisely the same thing," it's not even bloody close. Perhaps you could enlighten me: explain who are the people attempting to control contemporary discourse - explain how they are doing it - explain why they are doing it - explain exactly what thoughts they are trying to make illegal to discuss. I'd like to see you try without falling into utterly ridiculous conspiracy theories.

I think it's beyond obvious that there are a very large amount of very stupid laws on the books

Great, welcome to the club: it's called People Who Are Sure They Know Best How Things Should Be Run. Members: basically everyone. I have some grumpy old men who hate welfare bludgers and some young bright-eyed radicals who think money is just, like, this thing that people made up y'know, to introduce you to if you're interested.

Which is, as demonstrated by the magnitude of the horrendous nature of all the things which have been created in precisely the same vein, clearly useless.

From your writing I take it you're educated (in some respects.) By a school? Also, I'd assume you're in reasonable good health. Ever gotten sick? Needed medication? How about this computer you're using? Been mugged or stabbed recently? Your family ever been helped out by reliable insurance contracts? Ever worried about your hometown being invaded and burnt to the ground by neighbouring tribes? Enjoyed a bout of syphylis recently? How about reliable credit and a global economy that is a miracle of efficiency?

Oh yes, I absolutely agree with you: all of these silly laws - completely useless!

If the perspective is that one should simply accept that things are all roses...

Nice work reading your own pet peeves into what I wrote buddy.

Since your reply basically boils down to "Is not" I believe that the customary response on my part is supposed to be "Is so".

And since this exchange is very boring and trite and you are clearly a complete moron, I'll leave it at that, we can pretend it went on for a good long while but eventually you got the better of me and said "Is not" one more time than I said "Is so" and you won.

Cheers.

If you want to actually learn something about Galileo, try this.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb8fKBZlKmU&feature=relmfu

I agree with you on pretty much all points, but it's still sad.

Still, though, if we're talking about seeing the world in a realistic manner, a group of people who lost a mascot, one of their own, will not be able to hear your message. And Aaron really was a mascot. Most of the people who feel affected by his death didn't know him and weren't even particularly touched by his work during his life. It doesn't make it less sad, though.

You won't be able to convince them of anything, because they can't hear it right now.

With his death, Aaron became an icon, and anyone can attribute anything they want to him to make his life and death personally meaningful to them. Sadly the complex, troubled individual is mostly lost in this hagiographizing. I thought the Slate piece was the best and most nuanced thing I read about him so far. It jived with what I knew of him personally.