625
submitted 5 months ago by scottywh@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jussi@lemmy.duck.cafe 151 points 5 months ago

Aaron Swartz would loathe what Reddit has become.

[-] PatFussy@lemm.ee 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Hot take is I don't think anyone should care about Aaron Swartz. He didn't do anything for Reddit in the merger and left without doing anything for Reddit so who cares. He then died being a martyr for a cause barely anyone cares about and his death didn't inspire any change to education publication/copyright. Nobody should care.

Edit: you can downvote me all you want but I would like someone to comment on 1 thing Aaron contributed to Reddit. Why should anyone remember his name other than 'but he killed himself for the cause bro'.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 40 points 5 months ago

I think you have to convince everyone why it is reasonable that you are so angry and hateful towards someone you never knew.

[-] PatFussy@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I wasn't angry or hateful though? If anything I'm irritated of all the praise for not inherently doing anything.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

Literally I’ve seen two to three references of him after 17 years on reddit. You’re exaggerating how much people talk about him.

[-] PatFussy@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

So by that logic Aaron is relatively obscure right? Must be surprising to see his name on a Lemmy thread with so many upvotes. 2 or 3 references lol sure. I'm sure you haven't also seen one of the 2 or 3 documentaries on his life either.

[-] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 months ago

For someone who is tired of hearing about Aaron Schwartz, you sure have a lot to say about him, and seem to think about him quite a lot. More than me for sure.

[-] PatFussy@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago
[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

He was also a libertarian techbro who thought 'child pornography isn't necessarily abuse'

In the US, it is illegal to possess or distribute child pornography, apparently because doing so will encourage people to sexually abuse children.

This is absurd logic. Child pornography is not necessarily abuse. Even if it was, preventing the distribution or posession of the evidence won't make the abuse go away. We don't arrest everyone with videotapes of murders, or make it illegal for TV stations to show people being killed.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090719140727/http://bits.are.notabug.com/

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 13 points 5 months ago

You should probably use quote formatting to indicate that that's a quote, because right now it looks like your words

[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago
[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 3 points 5 months ago

In the sense that he actually was a "free speech absolutist" type, yeah. I think we can be pretty certain he didn't do it himself though, otherwise the FBI would absolutely have charged him for it as they harassed him to death.

[-] _bac@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Are you saying almost no one cares about open access to scientific publications?

[-] PatFussy@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

Yes, only a handful of people truly care.

this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
625 points (100.0% liked)

News

22876 readers
3402 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS