This video is at the top of reddit, but it doesn't show any real evidence of doctored videos.
Although google prevented affiliate monetisation on the video as seen on the affiliate earning graph, they probably have some intermediate step whereby they still show ads but the affiliate doesn't get paid for them.
Secondly, where the same video was shown with multiple different ads and the same view count - youtube video view counts dont increase in real time. You can push refresh on a video a few times and you will likely get 3 different ads with the same viewcount recorded.
I wish they were doctored images, but I don't think this is evidence of that.
Also, when did social justice trolling become a business model for the WSJ? First pewdiepie, now this?
I've already wrote about that on HN, but I believe it's worth reiterating.
Alexandra Elbakyan is not an example of disobedience. In fact, she is very obedient to the rules of society she lives in (she is an avid Putin's supporter), it's just those rules are different from the West. Her risks over SciHub project is negligible while she lives in Russia, and given her views, I think it's unlikely she want to live somewhere else. In her early interviews/posts in Russian, she considers the project as a Russian crusade over the West of some sorts, so I don't believe this is in any way similar to the Aaron's case. Aaron was a political activist and a champion of human rights, and Alexandra is neither.
To be honest, the way in which Western media frame her baffles me: they used a common western narrative and slotted her into it instead of telling the true story.
Alexandra Elbakyan is staying in Russia, yes. That's why she's still alive while Aaron Swartz unfortunately isn't and given that the award has to go to a live political activist and champion of human rights, that's why I've nominated her. Demanding our heroes die to prove their sincerity is, let's just say, not a helpful position to take.
You are over-dramatizing things. EFF members or the judge who overturned Trump's travel ban are alive. It's not like people are routinely killed in US over copyright infringement or political protest as your comment implies.
>a live political activist and champion of human rights
You emphasized "live" there, but I would rather emphasize
> political activist
> champion of human rights
Alexandra Elbakyan is neither. It's just an opportunistical breaking of rules that are not enforced in Russia, and nothing I've read from her (except her interviews to Western media) implies her "political activism" or "championship of human rights".
However, if you still thing that she is worthy of the prize, I would also suggest nominating the owners of pornolab.net. It's one of the largest porn trackers out there, and it's online for a dozen years at least. It's in Russian, which I believe is one of the main reasons it's still online.
On the more general note: the enemy of your enemy is not your friend, it's a tactical ally.
The award is clearly for people who are being disobedient for the benefit of society.
Breaking rules for the sake of breaking rules is just anarchy or trolling. You're just inconveniencing people who set out to recognise real contributions to society.
Unless there is an Aaron Schwartz foundation or something, nominate people who are still doing work.
This isn't about Aaron. It's about the next person who downloads too much free stuff doing it emboldened by the thought that MIT will have their back when the feds come knocking. If only because not doing so costs MIT 250 thousand dollars.
That would be a much bigger contribution to society than any one person walking away with this award.
> This isn't about Aaron. It's about the next person who downloads too much free stuff doing it emboldened by the thought that MIT will have their back when the feds come knocking. If only because not doing so costs MIT 250 thousand dollars.
The next person? There are people CURRENTLY downloading free stuff and sharing it.
Nominate an appropriate person. Vote for someone who really deserves it NOW. Show these people that we support civil disobedience when it benefits society. Take the fucking money.
At this point, I have to believe that the people who want to flood them with ineligible nominees are simply trolling HN and trolling the MIT Media Lab. You guys are potentially throwing away 250K for no real reason.
Also from the page
> Both individuals and groups are eligible to win the prize.
While we are on this topic, let's not forget the real culprits: cfaa and widespread abuse of discretionary power by prosecution.
We must repeal (and not replace) the cfaa. Of course, we should name and shame MIT at every junction (shame on you, MIT!) However, we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture. CFAA is evil.
> It's about the next person who downloads too much free stuff doing it emboldened by the thought that MIT will have their back when the feds come knocking.
Aaron Swartz was not an MIT affiliate, alum, faculty, or student. MIT had no obligation to "have [his] back" for violating MIT network policy and federal law.
> Aaron Swartz was not an MIT affiliate, alum, faculty, or student. MIT had no obligation to "have [his] back" for violating MIT network policy and federal law.
Having "no obligation" to do something is never an excuse for any behavior.
Aaron Swartz was literally my first thought too. I'm submitting him anyway, he should win and the money should go to like-minded worth individuals and causes.
I find Gates' lack of focus on environmental issues disheartening. I know he does invest in clean energy and feels strongly about climate change, but this doesn't really do anything to prevent deforestation NOW. I know that bringing people out of poverty may have a side-effect of improving some environmental parameters, but it also makes whole swathes of people start demanding more meat, more palm oil, more cars, more disposable goods. The big international benefactors don't seem that interested in rainforest biodiversity.
I am so tired of the "yeah that's nice but what about X" posts on the internet. This foundation focuses on making life better for poor children and that's a worthwhile thing to focus on.
If you actually read the full text of the post you'd see that they're simultaneously reducing the infant mortality rate while increasing access to family-planning education and contraceptives... these are all things that actually tend to REDUCE population growth in developing nations.
So the one argument you came here to have isn't even true... and even if it was you're suggesting that we'd be better off if more poor children died, which is just some shitty roundabout eugenics.
Maybe spend your time advocating on environmental issues instead of shitposting about it.
So some trees are more important than saving 122 million children? I know I'm going to get all the nasty replies that it's a larger issue than just a few trees, that without trees there won't be people, etc. But comments like these are the reason that people dismiss environmentalists as nutjobs that care more about trees than people.
Climate change is not just about trees, but about the massive loss of biodiversity that goes along with rapid climate change.
Sure most of Europe will be covered in pine trees, but at the same time a lot of species, essentially all that are not able to migrate with the same speed that the climate changes in their habitat will die out.
This article for example claims that 1/2 of the known species have died out within this century and 1/6 will die out if nothing is done about climate change:
Again, you completely missed the point. Bill Gates is one man with a certain amount of resources. He chose to go after a huge problem with known solutions: hundreds of millions of poverty-induced, completely preventable, childhood deaths. Climate change may be another worthy cause, but no one has any business criticizing him for not choosing that particular one over saving a massive number of children because they might cause some additional demand for palm oil.
Find a billionaire that is doing nothing for the world and criticize them for not doing something about climate change. Bill Gates is busy doing great things for humanity.
I think Bill Gates would agree that when you control the philanthropic funds of the 2 richest people on earth then you have some obligation to spend the money in proportion to the importance of the issues being addressed.
I won't argue the relative merits of the marginal value of a human life vs. mass extinction of species because I'm sure we both have different values underlying our respective views and will never convince each other of anything.
I won't argue the relative merits of the marginal value of a human life vs. mass extinction of species
We aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and when we do, it likely won't be from the effects of preventable climate change. We may in fact have another ice age sometime in the next several million years - but no amount of money, protests, cutting back on emissions, carbon taxes, or other measures will stop it. Dinosaurs had an ice age, and as far as we know they didn't have cars.
This is precisely not about the survival of the human species, we are doing fine and humans are the most likely to be able to adapt to rapidly changing climate and collapse of biodiversity. The issue is that the biodiversity will recover only slowly (in the order of 10 million years) and probably won't completely because we have left very few natural habitats anyways.
Humans have completely bypassed all the usual regulatory mechanisms that balance the populations of all the other species and caused mass extinction simply by reproducing well beyond what a natural ecosystem could sustain. Even the ice age set in way slower than how fast we are currently changing the temperature on earth.
As much as I understand that most people have an anthropocentric outlook, especially the >30% religious fundamentalists in the US, I feel like we should value overall biodiversity over pure human survival. Most of the programs the Gates foundation are probably helpful in the long run for this as well. Lower infant mortality, better access to birth control and reducing poverty will hopefully result in slowed down population growth.
Smart people, and people in general, are more productive doing what they're passionate about. Buffett on investing, Musk on space, and Gates on curing childhood diseases.
Although google prevented affiliate monetisation on the video as seen on the affiliate earning graph, they probably have some intermediate step whereby they still show ads but the affiliate doesn't get paid for them.
Secondly, where the same video was shown with multiple different ads and the same view count - youtube video view counts dont increase in real time. You can push refresh on a video a few times and you will likely get 3 different ads with the same viewcount recorded.
I wish they were doctored images, but I don't think this is evidence of that.
Also, when did social justice trolling become a business model for the WSJ? First pewdiepie, now this?