[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.