[open-science] open access perils? (#RIP @aaronscwarz)

[Matthew Brett]

Hi,

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Thomas Kluyver <takowl at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 January 2013 17:25, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Of course, the various state departments would much rather we discuss
>> and despair of the details of the Assange rape case than step back and
>> look in overview at the various weapons used against Wikileaks prior
>> to that.
>
>
> I'm not comfortable holding Assange up as an example of someone persecuted
> for their ideals, while it remains a serious possibility that he is hiding
> from a trial about an unrelated matter in a democratic country. Wikileaks,
> perhaps, but not Assange personally.
>
>>
>>    Likewise, I am sure that those motivated to prosecute
>> Aaron Swartz would rather we express suitable sorrow at a 'troubled
>> young man' or some other such slander.
>
>
> Slander? Accounts from his friends say that he had been suffering from
> depression for years [1]. I agree that Swartz was probably unfairly treated
> after the JSTOR episode, but we shouldn't assume that his suicide was a
> direct consequence of that. And it feels highly inappropriate, a day later,
> to be making it some kind of case study for the persecution of open access
> supporters.

I feel you have just repeated what I was complaining about: you do not
want to comment on the whole of what happened to Assange because you
don't want to get into discussion of a rape case and you don't want to
discuss the whole of what happened to Swartz because he was depressed.

Well, I know how it goes, but it's hard not to comment.

>> The problem with the implication that it always goes well, is that it
>> is so astonishing and then invisible to others, when it goes badly.
>> I think Paola is right - these things may take courage. If we give the
>> naive belief that we'll be treated fairly by opposing interests, it
>> weakens rather than strengthens the - sorry I will use this word -
>> cause.
>
>
> Whose cause? A core feature of the open 'movements' is that we're not a
> unified force fighting for a single cause. We have many different
> viewpoints, and we work together where our aims coincide. Again, this is the
> open science list: Swartz is relevant to open science, but Wikileaks,
> Assange & Manning are decidedly not.
>
> Your use of the word 'cause' is interesting and unsettling. I fear that when
> you're driven by a cause, it's all too easy to lose sight of individuals.
> For now, at least, let Aaron Swartz's death be an individual tragedy, not a
> loss to some higher cause. Likewise, let's not discount serious possible
> wrongdoings by Assange as an individual, just because he appears to share
> your cause.

I was fully aware of the reaction that 'cause' generates, that's why I
wrote it as I did.

I don't believe I'm discounting serious wrongdoings by Assange. I
realize that some people do discount the faults of people who agree
with them.  It also very often happens that - to quote Aaron Swartz -
"It’s always easier for people to blame the victim". [1].  This is
what is called the "just-world hypothesis" [2], and it is very ugly
when you see it working.

There are some of us who work for 'open-*' believing that we can avoid
all political or moral concerns and concentrate only on the practical,
believing perhaps that any mention of other concerns is unattractive,
confusing or irrelevant.   I guess that works fine until you run into
trouble, and I guess that's why we are disagreeing...

Best,

Matthew

[1] http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-05-07-n78.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis