Hacker News Reader

Comment by woah | Hacker News Reader

He certainly seemed to support the outrageous, overreaching prosecution that Aaron was facing.

"Aaron should man up, take responsibility for his actions, and pay his own bills."

This sounds a lot like "screw you, what you did is wrong, and you should quit whining about it."

"man up" clearly implies that Ed Weissman feels that going up against the massive US justice system to allow people without university affiliation or piles of cash to read publicly funded scientific research is an immature act.

As someone who has been blocked in the past from doing research because of lack of funds to pay the journals, this attitude disgusts me.

EDIT: Let me be absolutely clear that I am not implying that Ed had any blame in what happened or anything ridiculous like that. What I find objectionable in his commentary is his cavalier attitude towards the heavyhanded prosecution of those trying to make publicly funded research publicly available. This suggests a very elitist attitude towards the distribution of valuable public research.

View on HN

Aaron did something wrong [/edit: wrong in the eyes of the law: illegal, poor word choice/], something that he knew was wrong and that is an accepted fact, correct? If he did something he knew was wrong then what edw519 said is right, he should "man up" and accept the consequences, as everyone should do when they do something wrong.

The problem is what has come to light since that post was made, it has come to light that Aaron was not being held accountable for his "actions", he was being used. He was being made into an example, he was being turned into a tool to help peoples careers. This is what is important and why we should have supported him.

At the time nobody knew what he was facing, we know now and I'm sure if everyone here could go back they would support him more. Go back to the thread, forget everything you know about the case and situation and read the link (the appeal page on Aaron's website) and then the comments in the thread and form an opinion. It won't match what you're saying here because what you're thinking about now (and holding edw519 to) was not known at the time.

I think I remember that thread, and I remember thinking of typing "criminal defenses, guilty or innocent, are extremely expensive, and this is by no means a good thing" but I guess I didn't pull the trigger and say it.

In retrospect, I wish I'd made it, and I also wish I'd said "even though I consider Aaron in the wrong, I'm still donating $5 so he knows that other people know he's alive, and I encourage those who are on his side to donate as well." Lots of donations, even if small in amount, would have at least helped him not feel alone. Depression sucks.

See, here's the problem. In one sentence you're arguing that he should "accept the consequences", and in literally the very next sentence, you're describing how bad the consequences ended up being.

That is what is wrong with saying, "just accept the consequences", when you have no damn idea what the consequences are.

A story and the reality are always different. The story as presented to people at the time was Aaron had done something (legally) wrong and was in trouble for doing it, some people believed what he did was for a just cause (education material should be free) and others didn't.

If the people reading the story at the time were expected to act on the situation by donating, why is it wrong for them to act in the form of a comment? How can it be fair to say people should have donated based on their understanding of the situation but not be able to comment on the situation?

Every single person in that comment thread is just as guilty of wrong doing if edw519 is guilty of any, because they all formed an opinion around something they knew very little of. It just so happens that the opinion edw519 expressed is unfortunately one that is at odds with the reality of the situation.

First, just to be really clear about this: Ed is pretty much the very last example of bad behavior that I would ever look to on HN. He's a heck of a nice guy, and I wish he wasn't the one being discussed here.

That said, surely you can acknowledge that there's a difference between donating and posting a comment?

oh of course, they're very different things that have very different motivations and very different results, what I'm trying to argue is that they are both actions that come from an interest in the subject at hand. If you act on something (regardless of the specifics of that action) then you're making a commitment to that subject.

The point is every single person that acted on that post was doing it under exactly the same idea, "I have read about this situation and based on what I have read I believe x to be (true / false) and therefore I (support / don't support) Aaron" so when someone said "I believe that Aaron does not deserve to be bearing the burden here, I am donating $10 to his fund" they were making exactly the same assumptions as edw519 made when he said "I believe that Aaron is responsible for this situation and therefore should be responsible for the consequences".

The only difference is edw519 is on the wrong side of the outcome. Those that donated didn't know that Aaron was in some serious shit way beyond what anyone imagined, just like edw519 didn't know that Aaron was in some serious shit way beyond what he imagined.

If everyone took the line you're talking about, "I don't know the full story (because nobody ever can) so I'm not going to pass any judgement" Aaron would not have been the recipient of any donations, because Aaron could have been more in the wrong than edw519 thought! Maybe the prosecution had evidence that showed Aaron intended to rip people off, or commit a terrible crime? I don't want to be behind supporting that! I had better just ignore everything.

> If everyone took the line you're talking about, "I don't know the full story (because nobody ever can) so I'm not going to pass any judgement"...

sigh. I never said that. I have no idea how you got from "comment publicly" to "pass judgement".

I think I'm misunderstanding the point you're making, I'm not much good at interpreting things. From what I understand of your comment:

    That is what is wrong with saying, "just accept the consequences", 
    when you have no damn idea what the consequences are.

I think you're saying that he shouldn't have passed judgement because he wasn't aware of the situation, although now reading your emphasis on ""comment publicly" to "pass judgement"" I suspect you may have meant that edw519 is at fault for his specific action (commenting that he thought Aaron should accept the consequences) not for thinking that Aaron should have accepted the consequences? If that's the case then my comment will not have been particularly relevant, sorry about that.

> I suspect you may have meant that edw519 is at fault for his specific action (commenting that he thought Aaron should accept the consequences) not for thinking that Aaron should have accepted the consequences?

Yes, exactly, with the caveat that I'm absolutely not putting Ed "at fault" for anything here -- I'm talking about comments like that one, in general.

Everybody judges things, we on HN perhaps most of all. That's fine, it's part of our nature. However, we really need to think it over before we declare our judgement in a comment on a public forum, especially when it's likely that we aren't fully aware of the situation we're judging.

> If that's the case then my comment will not have been particularly relevant, sorry about that.

Hey man, no worries. Glad we got it sorted.

Except that a large, negative comment from a widely respected HN poster is a pretty effective anti-donation.

> when you have no damn idea what the consequences are

Because this is unprecedented. People are still shocked at the excessive nature of the charges. No one expected it. To expect everything to be so severe would be paranoia.

I guess that's fair. I honestly hadn't considered that; I've had enough dealings with the justice system to know that it's impossible to overestimate the damage they're willing to do to someone's life when it suits them.

I'm not entirely certain that Aaron knew he was doing something wrong, or, for that matter, whether he was in fact doing something wrong. It seems he made little effort to cover his tracks and pretty much acted out in the open. And from what I've heard from friends who've met him in person - Aaron was brilliant, idealistic, a nice guy, and hopelessly naive about how the world actually works.

I'm pretty sure that he believed strongly that he was doing something right and that he must have been very upset at being persecuted in the way that he was for doing what was right.

If he didn't think he was doing anything wrong, why didn't he just ask permission?

There is this bit: "It is better to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission". This especially holds true if you're up against what we'll loosely label the establishment here, especially if said establishment is capable of marshalling serious force against you. Once it's done it's done, but during the execution phase just getting the job over with is often the smartest course of action.

See the PACER incident for how that can play out when it works. And I guess the JSTOR one for when it doesn't.

I'm not sure that this forgiveness vs. permission rule works well with civil or criminal law...

It has worked well for me so far. Of course it always does until it no longer works so this is just another instance of survivor bias. Unfortunately for poor Aaron it did not work out well for him.

He may've believed that the people who he would have to ask permission from are doing something wrong.

It's possible to believe you're doing something right and still be acting against the rules.

Let's just imagine -- completely hypothetically, of course -- that I recently wrote a crawler specifically designed to rescue client websites from a terrible DIY website service (which might or might not be Jimdo). Let's imagine it was tuned to load Jimdo-related assets (or the assets of a similar service), fix broken code, etc.; I'm pretty sure this would have been against Jimdo's rules (or the rules of a related service, if I had done such a thing, which, surely, I did not), but let's say I did it anyway because I think it's reprehensible that they don't provide a way for their customers to export their websites.

It's possible that I could have found myself on the pointy end of an expensive lawsuit over something like this. It's possible that I would have broken some laws that I am unaware of, had I done that -- and, had I done that, it would only weaken my case further to claim foreknowledge of the laws being broken. It's likely that there are laws which could be loosely enough interpreted to make me guilty of some form of "hacking". (And it would be most certainly utterly stupid to even consider leaving a comment like this under my regular username -- if, of course, I had done such a thing. Fortunately, as HN occasionally reminds me, I'm not competent enough to have done something like this.)

But there's no way I'd ever say that I did something "wrong", and there's no way I would have asked for Jimdo's permission to do something like that. I simply knew what the rules were, and I believed it was the rules, not I, that were wrong.

Maybe you have heard of The Underground Railroad? Or "Separate but equal" policies and the movements which nonviolently opposed them? Or the United States of America, which was born of disagreement with the rules of the time?

Laws and rules are written by humans. Sometimes other humans don't agree with the rules as they are currently and try to make the world a better place. Sometimes they succeed. Sometimes they fail.

More to the point, why did he keep taking specific action to evade the feeble roadblocks the admins managed to put up in front of him before he finally just hooked his laptop to a switch? Why did he ignore the Terms of Use statements when he started off on the Wifi MIT network?

Guys, aaronsw was wicked smart, he was undoubtedly at least vaguely aware of there being a Federal law covering "computer crime". It's far easier to believe that he felt he was doing the right thing despite the law than to believe he was completely unaware.

Is it wrong to jaywalk? Assuming you'd say yes then, if one jaywalks across the street to pick up the cure for cancer and subsequently disseminates said cure, would you persecute him for jaywalking? Because jaywalking seems like a pretty good analogy to Swartz's causing a short disruption of the Jstor service, and it wouldn't surprise me if the open publication of all scientific knowledge had the direct result of curing cancer, or the equivalent, many times over.

You're basically saying that the ends justify the means. You may believe that (we probably all do, for some ratio of ends:means) but please keep in mind that the legal system does not believe that in general, as that logic has often been perverted in our history.

And just like hacking, in many places, Cambridge included, "jay" walking (I refuse to acknowledge this preposterous concept with its own word) may be purportedly illegal, but is actually accepted and encouraged. But you still must beware the rare meddling fed; they don't like people undermining the need for painting all those hazardous crosswalks.

> accept the consequences

Everyone has to accept the consequences. Reality doesn't allow you not to. There's no way to 'log out' of the real world; the most you can do is kill yourself, and then your suicide becomes the consequence.

Whenever someone says "accept the consequences" they mean "accept the consequences in silence", as opposed to accepting them under vocal protest and attempting to challenge them. When the consequences are unjust, accepting them in silence is acquiescing to the injustice, which only serves to perpetuate it.

Merely accepting the consequences is inevitable; accepting the consequences in silence is a choice, and it is not always the best choice.

Aaron (supposedly) did something illegal. Whether his actions were wrong is an entirely different question, and one that is highly subjective.

And what's more, it's entirely possible to feel that Aaron's actions actually were wrong and yet still feel that the prosecution was overbearing.

> Aaron should man up

And now we see the consequences of our society's sexism.

Nobody tells women to "man up".

I'm sure they do actually, but likely with slightly different language like "stop crying"; same thing. Just because a statement isn't gender neutral doesn't make it sexist.

I am a woman. I go around telling women to "woman up". I try to do so in an empowering way and not be an asshole.

Fuck sexism though.

> I am a woman. I go around telling women to "woman up".

Well, the difference between "woman up" and "man up" is that, for men, showing emotion is a sign of weakness, so "man up" means "don't show emotion". That's a very dangerous thing to tell people who have serious emotional problems.

It's not, though. There's a perception that showing emotion is a sign of weakness for men. However, think about how you actually react to men who show emotion. How did you react to Lessig's or Doctorow's posts about Aaron, with all their emotion? Did you think them less of a man for it?

I think there is a strong taboo against men appearing out of control of themselves or their situation. But that's not really gendered: when women appear out of control, we label them "crazy bitches".

> there is a strong taboo against men appearing out of control of themselves

Exactly. This applied to Aaron asking for help he badly needed for his legal fund. This did not apply to Larry or Cory. They may have been sad or angry, but they were not personally scared, threatened, unable to fund their own legal defenses, etc., so they did not violate the taboo. Their posts were more along the lines of a father mourning a lost son. Emotion is expected there.

"There's a perception that showing emotion is a sign of weakness for men."

Which is why berating someone with gendered terms is pretty futile, it encourages people to clam up and compartmentalize unhealthily.

I don't understand it that way, but I grew up with a father who fought in two wars and was not afraid to cry in front of others.

Maybe you missed my general sentiment: Fuck sexism though. I think you and I are talking at cross purposes.

Absolutely. This is a perfect example of how restrictive gender norms (or, what some might call "patriarchy") can harm men as well as women, and are something we all need to care about.

> This is a perfect example of how restrictive gender norms (or, what some might call "patriarchy") can harm men as well as women

And this is why I hate the term "patriarchy" in this context: It implies men always get the best of it, there are no downsides for males, and therefore we should be dismissive of male problems.

I know this isn't what academic feminists think. It is, however, what a disturbing number of people who call themselves feminists out in the real world apparently believe.

Yup. Male privilege exists and is real (and unfair), yet it is also true that gender norms can harm men. It's a shame so many folks act like the truth of one of those statements disproves the other. I guess the combined statement is too subtle to fit in a sound bite or rallying cry.

"And this is why I hate the term "patriarchy" in this context: It implies men always get the best of it, there are no downsides for males, and therefore we should be dismissive of male problems."

Feminism benefits men as well. Patriarchy DOES exist to the detriment to men, your anger is misapplied.

> Feminism benefits men as well.

It depends on how it's applied, doesn't it?

> Patriarchy DOES exist to the detriment to men

Thank you for restating my point.

> your anger is misapplied.

How? I don't understand how my anger is misapplied here.

"> Feminism benefits men as well. It depends on how it's applied, doesn't it?"

Destroying systems of entrenched privilege may not be viewed as beneficial by all men that cling to these systems, no. But equality does provide for a healthier system, if one appreciates women healthy in mind and body.

Harping on straw "Feminists" won't improve our situation.

> Harping on straw "Feminists" won't improve our situation.

Mentioning they exist is not the same as harping on them.

And this points out an asymmetry: Whenever a man focuses on the male perspective of gender equality, people drag out the 'MRA' stereotype. While the stereotypical MRA exists, that stereotype is no more relevant to the issue than the stereotypical straw feminist is relevant to the female perspective of gender equality. Yet, online, in the real world outside of the academy, that MRA stereotype is in constant use.

> Destroying systems of entrenched privilege may not be viewed as beneficial by all men that cling to these systems

And this is an example. It states that gender equality from the female perspective is automatically equivalent to "Destroying systems of entrenched privilege", which is a courtesy not given to the male perspective on the same concepts.

This asymmetry is divisive and serves to perpetuate the pointless hatred that keeps equality from being realized.

"And this is an example. It states that gender equality from the female perspective is automatically equivalent to "Destroying systems of entrenched privilege", which is a courtesy not given to the male perspective on the same concepts."

As I stated, it does by lessening strict gender roles.

> As I stated, it does by lessening strict gender roles.

But that's also true of looking at gender equality from the male perspective, yet whenever someone attempts that the old MRA strawman stereotypes get thrown around.

"But that's also true of looking at gender equality from the male perspective, yet whenever someone attempts that the old MRA strawman stereotypes get thrown around."

Generally, it's because MRAs tend to find gains for women zero-sum. There are issues with regards to divorce, child support, and custody that can be discussed, but all these can be addressed as a feminist and do not require "masculinism" as some sort of a counter. There is a difference between discussion of gender and the movement's adherents.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/br...

> Generally, it's because MRAs tend to find gains for women zero-sum.

The stereotypical MRA does.

> There are issues with regards to divorce, child support, and custody that can be discussed, but all these can be addressed as a feminist and do not require "masculinism" as some sort of a counter.

Your experience might be different than mine. In my experience, any mention of the idea that men can be raped by women, for example, gets shouted down by 'feminists' (you can take that label as you will) as 'hijacking' the 'real' discussion, which is solely about men raping women. Men being raped by men is, at best, a side-show to that discussion. Women being raped by women is similarly absent as a topic.

"In my experience, any mention of the idea that men can be raped by women, for example, gets shouted down by 'feminists'"

Like I said, there's no need to craft Straw Feminists from whole cloth. Make your points without these fabrications.

> Like I said, there's no need to craft Straw Feminists from whole cloth. Make your points without these fabrications.

I'm not lying and your need to claim I am damages your case.

An example from Reddit, which is very much the non-academic Real World I've been talking about:

ImaLamer:

> As someone who was raped by a woman, while drinking, something you've put full responsibility on her for in other comments, you quickly dismissed my feelings and the impact this has in my life. It was not statistically significant for you to care. So much so you took it as an opportunity to further bash men as a class.

Saganomics:

> Well ladies and gentleman, that's what Men's Rights thinks. There you have it.

http://www.reddit.com/r/sex/comments/168bwu/you_guys_may_hav...

The claim of ImaLamer's post being edited afterwords is difficult to take seriously: Edited posts are marked with an asterisk, which is not present on ImaLamer's post. Also, Saganomics' post happened long after the very brief window when you can edit without an asterisk appearing.

"An example from Reddit, which is very much the non-academic Real World I've been talking about:"

Seeing as they did not state what you claim that they did, you still lack for example.

I don't think it's showing emotion, I think that it's that we expect men to be self-reliant and should not need or want help from others. Men are responsible for their own outcomes. Women aren't seen as any worse for wanting help, and it's acceptable to attribute their outcomes as caused by their relationships or social environment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com