According to a quick read on Wikipedia, you are right. He was charged, But not sentenced.
On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) police on state breaking-and-entering charges, after connecting a computer to the MIT network in an unmarked and unlocked closet and setting it to download academic journal articles systematically from JSTOR using a guest user account issued to him by MIT.[15][16] Federal prosecutors, led by Carmen Ortiz, later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and eleven violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,[17] carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution, and supervised release.[18] Swartz declined a plea bargain under which he would have served six months in federal prison.[19] Two days after the prosecution rejected a counter-offer by Swartz, he was found dead in his Brooklyn apartment.[20][21]
It is not true that he was sentenced to 35 years in prison by US authorities for transferring and sharing scientific articles from JSTOR. It is true that he killed himself.
Looks likely he would have been convicted, especially considering the whole suicide thing??
Basically the same thing, calling it misinformation implies its creating a perception of the incident that is unwarranted, where I would disagree that the distinction has any merit
I am genuinely disappointed that on an ostensibly science-related message board I see comments along the lines “this isn’t actually true, but it kinda-sorta is, therefore, inaccurate claims somehow aren’t misinformation”. If all kinds of counter-factual things were true, then all kinds of things would be true: what is the point of this hand-waving to defend something that is riddled with untruths? Also, with whom did he purportedly share these documents? In 22 words, this person got no fewer than two things wrong and you are carrying water for what reason?
Law is not science, it’s politics. This is a political distinction, not a matter of the laws of reality
Their comment wasn’t a dissertation, i didn’t expect extreme precision, I’m defending the spirit in which I believe that comment was posted, because I agree with it, simple as
It was wrong and it should be not wrong. Odd that that is a controversial statement and that you used Reddit-level reasoning about a dissertation when someone just wants others to not spread untruths.
Rocking up to a popular conversation, and saying this is wrong, but not providing what you consider correct. Is a great way to not be a contributing member of society.
Requiring people to have a 15 message subthread to figure out what you meant from your first comment is very unhelpful
Please don’t spread misinformation.
Edit: Why is anyone downvoting this? The text is inaccurate and should not be posted.
You can’t make a claim like that without elaborating why you think it’s misinormation [SIC].
It didn’t get to trial if I remember right. He definitely wasn’t sentenced.
According to a quick read on Wikipedia, you are right. He was charged, But not sentenced.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
It makes two claims and he did commit suicide. Also, my keyboard is broken. :/
What about this is misinformation?
It is not true that he was sentenced to 35 years in prison by US authorities for transferring and sharing scientific articles from JSTOR. It is true that he killed himself.
After googling it it seems he was charged and those were the estimate of years if convicted so
So?
Looks likely he would have been convicted, especially considering the whole suicide thing??
Basically the same thing, calling it misinformation implies its creating a perception of the incident that is unwarranted, where I would disagree that the distinction has any merit
I am genuinely disappointed that on an ostensibly science-related message board I see comments along the lines “this isn’t actually true, but it kinda-sorta is, therefore, inaccurate claims somehow aren’t misinformation”. If all kinds of counter-factual things were true, then all kinds of things would be true: what is the point of this hand-waving to defend something that is riddled with untruths? Also, with whom did he purportedly share these documents? In 22 words, this person got no fewer than two things wrong and you are carrying water for what reason?
Law is not science, it’s politics. This is a political distinction, not a matter of the laws of reality
Their comment wasn’t a dissertation, i didn’t expect extreme precision, I’m defending the spirit in which I believe that comment was posted, because I agree with it, simple as
It was wrong and it should be not wrong. Odd that that is a controversial statement and that you used Reddit-level reasoning about a dissertation when someone just wants others to not spread untruths.
Rocking up to a popular conversation, and saying this is wrong, but not providing what you consider correct. Is a great way to not be a contributing member of society.
Requiring people to have a 15 message subthread to figure out what you meant from your first comment is very unhelpful
I thought it was pretty obvious, since there is so little actual content in the post, but I guess you’re right. Thanks.
deleted by creator