[Mononokay]

It allows for open-access of the epitome of human progress, which is something unavailable to low-income communities. It's copying data, not stealing from a museum, so it's not as if any journal is losing much, if anything.

There's no real ethical downside - allowing people who wouldn't normally have access to research helps to reduce inequality, and allows human progress to advance a lot quicker than if it weren't open. There are brilliant people of which have no access to research, who could - and would - more likely do something with it than not.

Given that we all pay for science, [0] from people in the lowest drudges of poverty, to people in the highest skyscrapers in New York, we should all have access to it. Imagine you paid taxes meant to improve roads in your area, but ended up going to a place hundreds of miles away from you. You'll never get to use these roads, and you'll be told you're unethical and unlawful if you even consider using them. It wouldn't be very fair, would it?

[0] https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays

[lsh]

Unless the article has been published as open access under a CC-BY (or similar) licence, it's not open access, please don't confuse the two.

I agree with you in spirit - tax payer funded research outputs should be publicly available - but this is what got Aaron Swartz: it is unlawful.

[Mononokay]

I never said the research was open-access, I said it allowed open-access to research. There's a difference, and although it's just positioning, it makes quite a difference in the meaning of a sentence.

[Fins]

One could easily come up with quite a few ethical arguments against Sci-Hub -- it's there to stick it to the "West". It has nothing to do with science, human progress, or anything as lofty. Basically, just another department of the Olgino Troll Factory.

That it lets you freely access some scientific materials regardless of whether the rights owner (or authors, for that matter) agree to it or not is just a minor side-effect.

[folli]

If the Scientific Publication Mafia is your definition of the "West", then, yes, let's stick it to the "West".

Anyway, is there any proof that Sci-Hub is part of the Kremlbots, besides Alexandra Elbakyan being from Kazakhstan?

[SXX]

She have strong pro-Putin view and tend to ban anyone who dont agree with her, even banned all Russian IPs from Sci-Hub last year because of some political discussions on social networks.

Though this doesn't change the fact project itself is very useful and obviously it's her own personality problems rather than some conspiracy.

[skrebbel]

She obviously doesn't share the NYTimes Western Standard World View, but to say that blocking all Russian IPs is pro-putin is a bit of a shortcut, no? The world isn't just "pro west" vs "pro Putin" and from what I can tell, Elbakyan has a nuanced standpoint.

[SXX]

I didn't wanted to explain here why exactly she banned it since I believe no one on HN will truly interested in authoritarian state internal politics, but it's important in this case. Few years ago Kremlin marked non-profit Dynasty Foundation [1] that was for years funding science and educational institutions as "foreign agent" and stated that that reason for that is foreign funding. Of course it's was complete bullshit because organization was funded by single person: Dmitry Zimin (founder of one of three largest Russian telecoms).

Real reason for that Kremlin action was funding of some politics-related book publishing and lectures. For non-profit "foreign agent" mark in practice bring regulation that almost impossible or too expensive to comply with. So Dmitry Zimin just decide to close non-profit.

Then most of people in Russian science community who still live and work in Russia have strong liberal views. Obviously they wasn't too happy about that since it's one one of few non profits in Russia that was actually funding science and education for real. Very few rich people in Russia ever donated anything to science or education so it's a big loss.

Elbakyan "nuanced standpoint" was such that Kremlin doing good job and since Sci-Hub users from Russia didn't agree she just decide to ban whole country.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_Foundation

[oytis]

Reducing "the West" to NYTimes seems to me as a much more severe oversimplification. Alexandra's viewpoint does not only contradict NYTimes, it contradicts basically the whole political spectrum of liberal democratic countries, except maybe radical left and radical right (die AfD and die Linke and the respective media in German context for example). Of course her standpoint is not without nuances, and so is everyone's. But it is still not incorrect to call her anti West and pro Putin, and I believe she herself would not object this definition. And of course that's not to diminish her positive role in protecting the freedom of humanity by maintaining SciHub. It is really thouht-provoking that otherwise non-free countries still contribute to common freedom by being less involved into copyright-protection system.

[Fins]

Her viewpoint contradicts pretty much everything that is good and decent in the world (and really, being a communist in XXI century is just as inspiring as being a neonazi).

Sci-hub is there to "expropriate the expropriators" in Lenin's words. That there is some wider benefit to the community is completely secondary.

[SXX]

> Sci-hub is there to "expropriate the expropriators" in Lenin's words. That there is some wider benefit to the community is completely secondary.

While you can see my opinion on her personality above I still think you going into extremes regarding the project itself. Keep in mind that she is just end up being face of the project, but there more people working on it, and maintaining Library Genesis too, and dealing with risk of getting into prison for the service they provide to everyone.

[tnzn]

Lmao, she is a communist, how is she pro-Putin ?

[Fins]

You'd have to ask her how she reconciles being a non-marxist communist, transhumanist, and Putin's stooge, but she manages somehow. There were examples posted here of her punishing scientists for speaking up in support of someone Putin had targeted.

As to why... I would hazard a guess that it's because she's neither a good person (far from it, by all indications) nor, really, a particularly bright one.

[Fins]

Obviously, not because of where she's from, but because she actually is anti-West.

There's an example posted below of how she is a Putin stooge. Blocking access to everyone in your own country because scientists (you know, ones she is allegedly supposed to help) because the ones who are actually involved in science supported pretty much the only foundation that funds science in Russia when Putin decided to close it...

Sure, yeah, that's who selfless altruists working for the betterment of humanity do, not Kremlin trolls. (insert sarcasm tags appropriately).

[Mononokay]

What exactly's your point? A "department of the Olgino Troll Factory" that directly benefits a vast portion of the world's population? That, again, only happened because of government—and therefore taxpayer—coin? That has no direct or indirect involvement in government, democracy, or harm of any living entity?

Forgive me for not seeing the downside.

[Fins]

I think "directly benefits a vast portion of the world's population" is a vast exaggeration.

And when Russian scientists (real ones, not the ones who write fake dissertations for Putin's ministers) needed that benefit (science in Russia isn't exactly well funded) she yanked the access in the entire country because some of them dared to support someone Putin had targeted.

Sorry, don't see the upside or even much ethical excuse in supporting something that is demonstrably evil just because it might have a beneficial side-effect.

[Mononokay]

> I think "directly benefits a vast portion of the world's population" is a vast exaggeration.

How exactly does it not? There are more college-aged people than ever, and a good portion of them wouldn't have access to a substantial amount of research without Sci-Hub. Similarly, there are more pre-collegiate students than ever who are interested in research. Both of these groups directly benefit from having it. Indirectly, the rest of the world gets more progress and a better standard of living.

> Sorry, don't see the upside or even much ethical excuse in supporting something that is demonstrably evil just because it might have a beneficial side-effect.

Demonstratably evil? I'd love for you to clarify on that.

[Fins]

THat's still not what I would call vast. Vast would be far more mundane stuff, like providing clean water and medicine. Not to say that access to research publications is not important, but there are great differences in magnitude.

Demonstrably? I would say that being a communist, in this century, when you can't even pretend that "you did not know" like fellow travelers in 1950's did is a pretty good indication. Her stated goal of "standing up to the West" (which is far from perfect, but really much better than any alternative) and supporting strongmen like Putin (apparently she's also quite fond of characters like Saddam or Qaddafi, too) who do so, to the point of directly and intentionally hurting the very scientists that her project allegedly supports points in that direction, too.

I just really don't get all the hero worship on someone who, at no risk to herself (she's no Edward Snowden or even Aaron Swartz), wants to stick it to the very people who support her. That effort would be far better spent on setting a real alternative publication system.