this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
47 points (94.3% liked)

Reddit

17509 readers
704 users here now

News and Discussions about Reddit

Welcome to !reddit. This is a community for all news and discussions about Reddit.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules


Rule 1- No brigading.

**You may not encourage brigading any communities or subreddits in any way. **

YSKs are about self-improvement on how to do things.



Rule 2- No illegal or NSFW or gore content.

**No illegal or NSFW or gore content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-Reddit posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



:::spoiler Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thesmokingman@programming.dev 12 points 1 year ago (28 children)

Swartz wasn’t involved in the origins of Reddit. He got involved when Y Combinator combined his company with Reddit (something along those lines?). He was not an actual founder, just an early influencer. In many ways, decoupling him from the shitshow that Ohanian and Huffman have engendered is a good thing.

This is very similar to the argument of Musk being a founder of Tesla.

[–] Gramba@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Also Swartz had a section of his homepage defending child pornography as "not necessarily abuse" and that possession & distribution of it should be a first amendment right. He also advocated for a violent overthrow of the US government. Here's a cache of one instance of him defending it. Aaron did some really great tech stuff, but he's not a person that should be regarded as some hero as he had a lot of views that were misguided at best.

That website has been the same since it’s first archive on 2002-12-17. Aaron Swartz had just turned 16 a month earlier. I know I had some seriously immature opinions at that age. As well, that website was still up as of this January, a decade since his passing. http://www.aaronsw.com/ is also still up, and it doesn’t look like it was updated since 2002 either. Neither is any of this referenced on his wikipedia page, nor on it’s talk page. This feels like such a reach…

[–] elkaki@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

I sure love it when people use a single opinion to smear a person's entire legacy, he was great not only for the tech stuff but his stance on scientific articles piracy and a lot of other stuff too.

I won't say that that his opinion on cp is a great one (there is no doubt at least for me that distribution should always be illegal), but he wrote it as a 16 years old and it was guided due to his extremism for free speech over the internet, regardless, it's not like he himself was an evil person distributing child pornography, to paint him as an overall shitty person for an opinion like this seems idiotic imo

This is q bit personal and maybe slightly unrelated, but it reminds me of when people defend non-offending pedos (as in they are attracted to children because yhey are born that way but have not offended, nor groomed, nor harmed a child) saying the stigma should be erased because that would allow us to actually help this people who constantly hide it, therefore reducing the harm to children. This position has unironically got me called a pedophile and a lot of horrible stuff over the internet, and I would draw parallels to this situation, no matter how you slice it this opinion should not be used singlehandedly to state he is someone that shouldn't be respected. Especially since he is not defending the harm itself being done to children (as in the production of CP) which would still be a crime under his view. (Although distribution of course grows the market so it's idiotic not to go after that too), but as I said, it's a bad opinion but that doesn't make him a bad person.

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i heard that Ohanian and Huffman have people out there trying to suggest that he was a pedo or some shit, what about that

[–] Gramba@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd say you can read Aaron's own defense of child porn on his website and draw your own conclusions. If you're trying to suggest that I'm somehow defending Ohanian and Huffman, far from it. I can think Swartz shouldn't be considered a modern folk hero and still not like the other two.

Huffman was a mod for the jailbait subreddit.

Here's an interview with Ohanian after CNN reported on the jailbait subreddit which caused Reddit to close it down. Alexis blames CNN for "making up jibber jabber" and the children who allowed images of their abuse to be posted online.

This type of view was apparently support by all the original Reddit folks, just because Swartz has a better reputation now doesn't mean he didn't also share those views.

[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

He was 16 years old when he posted this. The statement is disgusting and not really defensable by itself, but I wonder if this was a dumb naive teenage take, or if he still thought this way up until he died.

I also don't know if he was actually a pedophile, or if he just thought freedom of information on the web should be taken to the extreme. I would lean towards the latter since he seemed to have a relationship with an older woman at some point, but I don't think I will ever truly know for sure.

[–] Gramba@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That archive date I linked is from shortly after his death. If you go through the various archive dates you can see that he made changes to the page over the years. He added the bit about wanting a violent overthrow of the government when he was 18 or 19. In 2007 when he would have been 21, the archive just shows a note that he had a server crash and the site is gone but you can email him if you want a copy of it. By the time he was 22 he'd put the site back online. He made more edits visible through the following years until his death. So yeah we don't know his thoughts but we do he continued to maintain that page, even choosing to restore it after a server crash, until the point he killed himself. It's not as though it's an online post he made as a kid and forgot about.

Thank you for the clarification there. I was not aware of the history of that cringey page. I had no idea that he kept it up and running like that.

[–] Wollff@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The statement is disgusting and not really defensable by itself

I hate it when this happens. Why do feelings always play into this discussion? "The statement is disgusting", is not an argument, and should never be part of any discussion.

No matter how disgusted a statement might make you feel, if it has a good argument behind it, it should be regarded as true.

I agree that the argument doesn't quite work. And that's that.

[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I just meant that it makes me feel gross. I imagine many people feel the same. I guess the statement itself isn't disgusting, but what it is advocating for is. On the other hand,

the argument doesn't quite work.

is putting it a bit lightly, in my opinion. Mostly because pedophilia is a generally despised act that should probably not really be argued for in the first place.

[–] zer0@thelemmy.club 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He also advocated for a violent overthrow of the US government.

Half of the US goverment are pedos, under your own logic he advocated for something good.

he’s not a person that should be regarded as some hero

With the amount of scum and corruption around these days any public figure not afraid to share their own thoughts should indeed be regarded as an hero

[–] Gramba@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't that a bit of a conflict to think violence against the government is good because there are pedos in the government and also that Aaron should be a hero for not being afraid to share his thoughts of defending pedos?

[–] zer0@thelemmy.club -1 points 1 year ago

He's not defending pedophiles he's making a point against the law you stupid idiot. The guy was arrested and faced life imprisonment over something that shouldn't have been a crime to begin with

[–] genoxidedev1@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What. The actual. Fuck. This guy is comparing peas to pies.

Imagine wanting to legalize that shit because "We don't arrest everyone with videotapes of murders, or make it illegal for TV stations to show people being killed.". Can't he imagine what would happen if we legalized that shit?

I think someone needs to get their hard drives examined.

[–] Gramba@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The feds did come after him for other computer crimes (unrelated to those views) and he hung himself and investigation into him stopped at that point.

[–] genoxidedev1@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Eh, didn't know the full story behind him (or even that he hung himself for that matter).

I'm not gonna pretend to have sympathy for him if he was guilty of possessing the stuff that he was advocating for.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But you have no problem creating judgement about the guy without knowing anything about him.

[–] genoxidedev1@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I read what he posted on his website. I know enough to make that judgement. I know me AND you would have said the exact same thing about everyone else that posted that shit on their website.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

No, you and I are different. I read what a 16 year old kid wrote AND I read the article that he linked to that explains why he was saying what he said.

You are basing your entire view of an adult based on what they wrote as a kid, without reading further to see why they had that opinion at the time. And you're completely fine judging them that way.

[–] exscape@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He was a big fan of freedom of speech of all kinds. That doesn't in any way suggest he possessed child porn. Read the entire page and it becomes quite clear that he is literally just listing laws that make certain kinds of data illegal.

I strongly disagree that CSAM should be legal, but the point that honest people have their lives ruined by being accused of possessing it, or by having normal images of their children, is certainly true.

[–] genoxidedev1@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

If you defend that shit in ANY way I'm gonna raise some eyebrows way up.

I do not care if it's to defend "free speech", there's WAY better ways to be an advocate for "any" free speech that don't include advocating for murder, hate speech or in this case CP.

"Child pornography is not necessarily abuse.", sure buddy.

"Even if it was, preventing the distribution or posession of the evidence won't make the abuse go away.", yeah the typical "stricter gun laws won't make mass shootings go away" excuse. Of course, but legalizing it would only make it way worse.

load more comments (21 replies)