[pieter1976]

I have never understood the raising up of Aaron Swartz to demi-god status by this community. It is tragic that he took his own life and I fully expect to be downvoted here for expressing this opinion as it is a thing you can't say here (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html).

[scrollaway]

He was young, showed great promise, was clearly ahead of his age, everybody who knew him found him to be a genuinely nice and caring person...

Is it really that surprising that people are genuinely upset he took his own life after being harassed by the US government? This is a community that tends to dislike extreme prosecution, copyright laws and generally agrees with Aaron's ideology.

And on another note: Can HN not care about a guy without people saying we're "raising him to demi-god status"? With how often that accusation is thrown around, you'd think we have enough to sell our demi-god surplus to cults in need of more.

PS: The "I'll be downvoted for my contrarian idea but ..." stuff is for reddit, not here, tbh.

[Ntrails]

>everybody who knew him found him to be a genuinely nice and caring person...

Whilst that may be true, I've not read about a lot of tragic deaths where everyone who knew the person thought they were a prick.

The point being raised is "Do we really think his theories had unusual insight/value or is his work being viewed through the lens of his death being tragic?". It seems like an entirely valid question to ask.

In terms of "the joker being a rational actor who achieved his goals". Well personally I think he's misinterpreted the film/characters, but I know i'm not an expert on such things so the most I can say is that I'll take his view with a pretty chunky pinch of salt.

[mapmeld]

I found it frustrating that famous technologists and thought-leaders had stories and praises for him after he died, which were not seen while he was alive, fighting prosecution, and needing their support. From an archived Wikipedia page, you see few statements of support: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Swartz&oldi... Aaron was private about his difficulties with the case, but it was not at all a secret... I think many people -especially those with influence in the open data space- were aware of it and doing nothing.

[whositis]

> everybody who knew him found him to be a genuinely nice and caring person...

You're rewriting history. Read up a bit about Reddit early days etc

He's raised up to demi-god status because he checks some boxes in the same way Turing does, and as with Turing, people believe the "history" they want to believe to fit their own views. Personally, I find it distasteful to use people like this, and it belittles everyone elses lives and contributions.

[dionidium]

You're rewriting history.

The thing I like most about Aaron's writing is that he was relentlessly introspective. But this definitely rubbed some people the wrong way. There were many who dismissed his articles as navel-gazing when they were originally posted.

[whositis]

> everybody who knew him found him to be a genuinely nice and caring person...

That is a demonstrably false statement, as you admit. No one is loved by everyone. No one is hated by everyone. No one is "evil", and no one is a "saint".

This ridiculous habit some people have of putting people in two boxes (good, bad) is just so stupid. People do good things, and do bad things. Everyone does some amount of good, and some amount of bad. People aren't good or evil.

[speaktruth]

I agree with every paragraph, that comment bothered me too.

But I also take issue with that false placement of him, that is again expressed in that OP title: "Aaron Swartz’s Theory on How to Save the World". That is not serious and is also in a way of disrespecting him.

It is remotly similar when Obama got its Nobel Price. I think it was done with good intentions, but was completely misplaced.

Uncharitably throwing misplaced attributed at a deceased person, because it goes well with the intention of selling a book is not human, but kind of perverse.

[YPCrumble]

Call the "U.S. Government" by name. Carmen Ortiz and Stephen Heymann perpetrated the crime.

[codingdave]

But he didn't really show great promise. He dropped out of high school. He dropped out of college. (At least according to the article... I didn't know him.) He didn't hold jobs. He broke laws, even if for arguably good reasons. He didn't get the legal help he needed. He didn't get the psych help he needed. And his life ended in tragedy.

He may have been a great guy. He may have been nice and caring. But he is not a great role model, no matter how much people wish he could have been.

[carlmcqueen]

Probably biased because I knew Aaron[1] but if you've read his fundamental belief on schools[2], which he held very early, it is not a big surprise that he didn't finish the process.

He didn't fit in that mold, as many didn't here. His mind didn't fit in the rule following process at all, which honestly IS what showed his great promise. He was capable of more and brave enough to try.

While I don't like post humous articles that use someone else to push your ideas, someone who can't speak for themselves anymore, this comment just made me sad.

[1] Same high school, a few years older. [2] https://newrepublic.com/article/127317/school

[jeswin]

> But he didn't really show great promise. He dropped out of high school. He dropped out of college.

He may have many flaws, but that's the one thing you can't say about him. Watch this part of Internet's Own Boy: https://youtu.be/aePSFMLzBBM?t=12m50s

To narrate that part of the video, as a school kid he goes to Washington to listen to Lawrence Lessig challenging the Copyright Laws in the Supreme Court. The video shows him saying that he's doing this because it's such an important case. How many school kids are interested in that kind of thing? And among other things, he participated (at a very young age) in the RSS specification, and was part of the team which wrote Reddit (PG calls him co-founder).

Many of us (especially here on HN) were aware of his accomplishments way before he took his own life. He's not someone who became a hero after or due to his tragic death.

[thecrow1213]

Are you kidding? Wasn't he one of the developers of the RSS protocol? Plus he was starting companies and giving lecture before most of us finished college.

I for one judge people on their accomplishments, not whether he finished school or not.

[bad_user]

> PS: The "I'll be downvoted for my contrarian idea but ..." stuff is for reddit, not here, tbh.

BTW, have you noticed that people saying that do not get downvoted as much? Such a complain works well, in spite of HN's official policy against it. People keep saying it because it works ;-)

[aninhumer]

>BTW, have you noticed that people saying that do not get downvoted as much?

No? My impression is that people saying it get down-voted more.

Indeed I've occasionally down-voted people just for saying it, because it usually reads to me like "I know HN most readers are too stupid to understand my opinions, but..."

[grzm]

You're much more likely to get downvoted for expressing that you expect to be downvoted. It shows lack of faith in the community you're participating in. If you believe what you're saying and express it in the most civil way you can, please do just that.

[rimantas]

While your first statement is true what has faith in the community has to do with it? Maybe OP just knows this community and that is enough reason not to "have faith" in it?

[JumpCrisscross]

It's an intellectual cop out. If you think you will be down voted, you should consider how you can rephrase what you're saying so you aren't. I'm not saying to change what you say, just how you say it.

"I'm going to get down voted for saying this" is the HN equivalent "I don't mean to be a jerk, but [says jerk things]".

[bshimmin]

I think at least part of the problem with saying that you expect to get downvoted is the inevitable meta-discussion that follows, with people citing the guidelines (wherein you will find the word "bait" to describe this, which to me seems unfair in many instances) and then others arguing the toss for the hundredth time.

Just to be a complete hypocrite: I personally don't think it's unreasonable to express a likely contrarian viewpoint and apologise in advance for that - but hey, I'm British, and some of us were brought up to be polite.

[grzm]

I personally don't think it's unreasonable to express a likely contrarian viewpoint and apologise in advance for that

Given the wide range of opinions expressed on HN, you can reasonably assume any opinion you express will be contrary to some of them. Expressing the expectation of downvotes is not apologizing in advance. "It may not be a popular opinion, but ", or "I'm sorry, but I've never understood..." are two alternatives. I'm sure there are better ones.

It's also important to consider whether it's worth expressing what you want to say if you also feel you need to apologize for it. Over half of pieter1976's initial comment is about the downvotes, including a Paul Graham reference justifying expressing a contrary opinion. The referenced essay specifically discusses this:

When you find something you can't say, what do you do with it? My advice is, don't say it. Or at least, pick your battles.

...

The most important thing is to be able to think what you want, not to say what you want. And if you feel you have to say everything you think, it may inhibit you from thinking improper thoughts. I think it's better to follow the opposite policy. Draw a sharp line between your thoughts and your speech.

Is ignoring community guidelines worth expressing the opinion "I have never understood the raising up of Aaron Swartz to demi-god status by this community"?

[JumpCrisscross]

> I personally don't think it's unreasonable to express a likely contrarian viewpoint and apologise in advance for that

Neither do I! There is a subtle but important difference between "pardon me if I'm missing something, but..." or "from the other comments on this thread it seems X is a widely-held view; I can't, however, seem to get my head around Y aspect of X" and advertising one's expectations of being down voted.

The former makes an effort to make sense of the views one disagrees with. That shows respect for the speaker. The latter dismisses it off the cuff.

If you're expressing a contrarian view, express it. If you want to apologise for it, do so politely. Better yet, incorporate why you think others will disagree into your response. Preemptively complaining, without offering any reasoning, is petulant.

[pieter1976]

Dutch not so different from British then.

[hx87]

Maybe I'm just American, but apologizing in advance is difficult to differentiate from preemptively and offensively playing the victim card.

[whositis]

That assumes people downvote only when a comment is not good or relevant.

They don't. The majority of people will downvote the comment because they disagree with it.

There is no way to disagree with the groupthink, without expecting to be downvoted.

[soundwave106]

Upvoted you, because the people who downvoted you unfortunately proved your point. :(

I personally would love it if downvotes required an explanation. Such would be a great way to separate the "your comment was out of line for legitimate reason" type of downvote vs. the "I'm downvoting you because you're wrong and I'm not even going to say why" type of downvote.

You can learn something from the former type of downvote; the later sort of downvote is completely useless.

[JoeAltmaier]

Sort of true. You can also ask questions, use less invective, and start by validating the post's view and then expand on it.

It comes down to, its more effective to lead a conversation than to just dispute and disagree. Its true on the internet; its true in person.

[chrishacken]

It's ironic that your comment was downvoted; because everything you said is exactly why it was. It's not that your idea is a bad theory or negative; people downvoted it because they didn't agree with it.

[hx87]

> There is no way to disagree with the groupthink, without expecting to be downvoted.

Then expect to be downvoted without explicitly posting that expectation. Nothing good will come of it.

[whositis]

Why? It's just another way of saying "I realise fully that this is not a popular opinion amongst most users of this website"

[Gargoyle]

Changing how you say something often won't avoid the downvotes. If it's something a lot of people don't agree with, you'll get downvoted anyway.

The trick, William Potter, is not minding that it hurts.

[grzm]

From what I've observed, the HN community values civil and substantive discussion. This relies, in part, on assuming good faith on behalf of the participants. Expressing that you believe that others won't evaluate comments fairly degrades this good faith.

[nickpsecurity]

You're correct. A good bit of my karma comes from doing exactly that. Plus, they almost universally hate comments about downvotes. So, two reasons to simply write a civil counterpoint that doesn't use that word at all.

[lazzlazzlazz]

I agree. His story is tragic, but why was he considered so profoundly enlightened? I have read almost everything published about him and failed to be grasped in the same way.

[Hermel]

You can't deny that he took a persomal risk for the greater good, namely the free dissemination of public knowledge. And that's basically the definition of heroic.

[tjansen]

No one here doubts that he was well-meaning and good at heart. He was just very young, extremely naive, and seemingly incapable of seeing what he did from another perspective, which lead to the whole tragedy. I would call the whole thing a cautionary tale.

[gizmo]

The tragedy was not caused by what you call his inability to see other perspectives. Monocausal explanations are usually wrong, and yours is no exception. Vindictive prosecution played a big role, inaction by MIT played a big role, the unforgiving nature of the plea-bargain justice system played a big role too, just to mention three causal factors.

To dismiss the entire catastrophe as a "cautionary tale" is heartless. People who stand up to the powers that be know damn well that it is likely they'll have to suffer the consequences. Aaron was fully aware of this, despite your claims of his naivety. This is a cautionary tale only if the lesson to be learned is: never stand up to power. For shame.

[tjansen]

I think 'standing up to power' is something that is justified under extreme circumstances, but we're talking about copyright laws in a democracy here, not about saving people's life in a dictatorship.

You may not like the existing copyright laws or the justice system. And I fully understand it, as I don't like parts of them either. But that doesn't give you the right to break the law. A society where people break laws just because they disagree with them simply can't work.

[gizmo]

Civil disobedience is a critical part of a functioning democracy. Defying unjust laws raises awareness of how unjust they are, and if the public is persuaded that the law is wrong then sometimes the laws will end up getting overturned. In the worst case the conscientious objector ends up getting crushed by the system. So when activists break laws they don't do so willy-nilly, because the stakes are so high.

Your claim that laws must always be obeyed in a democracy is gross. Are enslaved people supposed to follow the laws in a democracy that say they cannot fight for their freedom? Are we to condemn black people who organized sit-ins to protest apartheid? Are you not aware that practically all rights we enjoy today are the result of activists who risked their life to fight for these rights? Think for a second about the implications of blind obedience to the law, and the ugly historical record thereof!

[tjansen]

We're talking about copyright laws. Not about slavery, apartheid, or anything even close to it. There is no one's life at stake and there is no urgency. If you want to change copyright laws, you are free to use the democratic process and raise awareness to it in a legal way.

[slewis]

Who gets to decide which laws are ok to break? What do you think of medical marijuana users in the US (still 100% illegal at the federal level)?

[gizmo]

The individual is morally responsible for all their actions, regardless of the legal system in place. The individual has no moral obligation to follow unjust laws, and in some situations a moral obligation exists to break unjust laws and to risk getting punished for it. Under no circumstance does "I was only following the law" or "I was just following orders" work as a moral defense.

[raverbashing]

Sci-Hub did a better job of making knowledge available

What he did was inconsequential and then he preferred to quit rather than face the consequences (to which he would probably get support from the whole internet)

A.S. looks like more than a prankster who never got told that actions have consequences and an idealist that was too naive for his own good.

[cooper12]

Saying that he merely "quit", like he just walked out of the room or something, extremely trivializes depression and suicide. Also, the consequences in this case were disproportionate to the crime, with JSTOR listing inflated damages, and the prosecutor wanting to make an examples of him.

Lastly your whole comment is framed as a personal attack. You say "inconsequential" even though we have no clue what he was planning to do since he was made to delete the files, and you say "prankster" like was just trolling MIT and JSTOR. I recommend instead that you instead try to read a little about him, he accomplished much more then you gave him credit for.

[raverbashing]

> Saying that he merely "quit", like he just walked out of the room or something, extremely trivializes depression and suicide

True, I had considered this angle but I ended up not adding it to the comment. But I recognize the importance of those factors

> the consequences in this case were disproportionate to the crime, with JSTOR listing inflated damages

No contest on the inflated damages, which is part of most legal cases unfortunately, but he could have gotten the best lawyers to this case.

> even though we have no clue what he was planning to do

Scraping files is an action on itself that gives several suggestions on what he was going to do with them.

> and you say "prankster" like was just trolling MIT and JSTOR

Well he was at least doing that.

[cooper12]

I'm assuming you're thinking is that he was going to distribute them. While his Guerilla Open Access Manifesto [0] might support that, it's just one possibility. Or he might have analyzed the papers for personal research, as he did in the past:

> A few years ago, he downloaded a significant portion of the articles on the Westlaw legal-research database in order to analyze their sources of funding, in the hope of determining whether economic interests affected their conclusions. He gave the data to a Stanford law student, and she published an article in the Stanford Law Review based on his findings. [1]

[0]: https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamj...

[1]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/03/11/requiem-for-a-d...

[aptwebapps]

I thought JSTOR didn't want to press charges once the data was deleted? I believe they were firmer about that than MIT which took a somewhat hands-off approach.

[cooper12]

Yeah you're correct on both accounts. However the prosecutor in the case still wanted to charge him and it wasn't their decision to make.

[keymone]

who's denying he took the risk?

[chmike]

He is estimated by many people for his multiple significant contributions that he started at a young age. He also made mistakes and a very big one (committing suicide).

You say you don't understand why people estimate him. What's the point in saying that ? Who cares ?

Are you asking the arguments justifying why people seam to estimate him so much ?

Are you calling back into question the arguments justifying that he is estimated ? Them give us your arguments.

That you don't understand that Aaron is estimated could have many explanations. You could be stupid. You could discard or ignore data points. Your "measuring stick" could be bogus or too subjective. Some people may glorify him as semi-god because they are themselves stupid or want to piggy bag their reputation with the one of Aaron. Or maybe Aaron was just an impostor as you might be inferring.

My feeling is that "ignorance" is overrated these days. A comment that just say "I don't understand X" has very low pertinence value and, in my opinion, should not be upvoted on hacker news.

Please reformulate the point you would like to make and present your arguments. Only arguments are really relevant. I downvoted you for the reasons above.

[hx87]

I have never understood the use of "I fully expect to be downvoted" as a form of virtue signalling.

[lgas]

Ah see there's your problem, it's actually doofus-signalling.

[speaktruth]

The difficult but necessary thing is to describe his real public influence and legacy without hurting those close to him.

His ideas had always much less weight then his persona that was created by others and to some degree by him. There is no reason to judge him for that, because we all strive for significance and nobody is perfect. But I agree we should stop to further support that bumptious memory of him.

In the end, he was also a victim of dynamics that where not in his influence. There was people who wanted to make an example of him, because he (like many others) wanted to set information free.

I liked him because he was good looking in a JFK kind of sense. His confident charisma was pleasant and comforting, his words never misplaced. I miss him.

[jjtheblunt]

I totally agree with you: sad that he gave up on life, but what did _he_ really do? Sort of sit on the periphery of reddit? Complain and act entitled? The saddest thing is perhaps that folks 'worship'ing him contribute more than he did, day after day.

[Eupolemos]

He is a symbol.

Every time he's mentioned, someone feel the overwhelming need to pop up and share their "unpopular but realistic opinion".

I think that is embarrassing.

[pieter1976]

And there is the problem. He is being treated as a symbol, rather than a fellow human being who walked the planet with the rest of us and had his own demons.

[Eupolemos]

I don't see that as a problem - why do you?

One does not detract from or rule out the other.

[ocschwar]

One of his demons was Carmen Ortiz.

Step out of line and she can be your demon too. Or mine.

[dagenleg]

It's not like he cares, being dead and all.

[cooper12]

Tell that to his brother: https://medium.com/@swartzcr/people-call-me-aaron-3761481871...

[dagenleg]

I don't see how is that relevant. Why should we care about his brother having an identity crisis? It's sad, but even the brother complains about being overshadowed by his dead brother, not about his brother being made into icon.

[cooper12]

It's exactly because he's an icon that his brother is overshadowed by him.