• PatFusty
    link
    fedilink
    -74
    edit-2
    3 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
      link
      fedilink
      373 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.

      • PatFusty
        link
        fedilink
        -18
        edit-2
        3 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
          link
          fedilink
          123 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.

          • PatFusty
            link
            fedilink
            -203 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              83 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.

    • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥
      link
      fedilink
      22
      edit-2
      3 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        123 months ago

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

      • @DragonTypeWyvern
        link
        33 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.