More on the Demand Progress thing
Jul. 24th, 2011 10:37 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
usernamenumberA few people asked to know about it if I got a response from Demand Progress. Well, I sort of did. I don't actually know if it's an actual response, or another mass mailing. The title is "re Aaron's arrest" (which was not the title of my original message), and most of it is their standard asking people to sign the petition, donate, etc. But it did also include this (emphasis theirs):
"While we take the allegations against our former executive director very seriously, indictments are one-sided assertions of prosecutors' allegations -- they are absolutely not statements of objective truths. Our organization regularly argues for the principle that those accused of crimes are to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise -- and we will practice what we preach."
Sooo... yeah. I guess their logic is "since he's innocent until proven guilty, that makes it appropriate to only mention things that make him sound innocent"?
Really sick of these people, especially since some jackass has now published the entire JSTOR archive in a torrent along with a message that both repeats the "Aaron was arrested for downloading too many documents" lie (at least, it's a lie until someone refutes the way the NYT and other actual news outlets have been reporting it) and included a manifesto that amounted to "I don't think you should have this copyright, and that justifies me taking it from you".
The really frustrating thing is that I agree with many of the aims of these people. I want information to be free too, I think that a lot of academic journals are largely antiquated rackets that hold back academia and only exist by virtue of being so entrenched in the system. I should note that I don't consider myself an expert on the subject of these journals, but from talking to people who publish in them, neither the authors nor the peer reviewers are paid by the journal, the journal seems to just be an editorial brand, doing quality control and lending the prestige of its name to those they publish. That might have been the best way to handle large amounts of content years ago, but we have better ways now. (if someone who knows more than I wants to correct any of the preceding, by all means do so!)
I'm torn between my conviction that you change the system by changing the system, not just being a dick and ignoring it, and the knowledge that the very system in which I live was founded on revolution. What if this guy publishing a crapton of academic articles that previously lived behind an ivory tower paywall actually creates change? Systems are rarely known for their ability to accommodate change, and if the alternative is patiently waiting around for a critical mass of voices to be loud enough for long enough that it changes of its own accord, or provoking the government to meddle, does that make just saying "no", and forcing change ever ok? Where's the line? If the bar isn't set at least at having a critical mass of voices behind you, then you're using the same justification as any other vigilante (to wit, "I feel strongly about this, and that justifies my actions", followed by "but I'm right!" to differentiate you from other vigilantes), but when you're talking about niche issues where you're never going to get that critical mass because too few people care enough to even have a voice about it, or where the system one is trying to change is just too big and too entrenched, does that change things?
Anyway, I consider this a separate issue from Demand Progress' handling of the situation, so here's the response I sent them:
"Innocent until proven guilty" is not the same as "report only the information that makes him look innocent", and I suspect you know that. Your attempts to whitewash this situation are sad and offensive. Either refute what others are reporting as the facts of the case, have the conviction to paint this as an act of civil disobedience and make the case that what he wanted to do justified how he went about doing it, or say that while you support his goals we you do not condone his actions.
In my opinion, Demand Progress has demonstrated a marked lack of integrity in this fiasco, and I for one will never in good conscience be able to support it again.
Good day,
--Brad
Anyway, I think I'm done with them, but at least the thing's been thought-provoking? :(
And yes, I did have to resist the urge to end my message with "P.S. I said good day, sir!"
"While we take the allegations against our former executive director very seriously, indictments are one-sided assertions of prosecutors' allegations -- they are absolutely not statements of objective truths. Our organization regularly argues for the principle that those accused of crimes are to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise -- and we will practice what we preach."
Sooo... yeah. I guess their logic is "since he's innocent until proven guilty, that makes it appropriate to only mention things that make him sound innocent"?
Really sick of these people, especially since some jackass has now published the entire JSTOR archive in a torrent along with a message that both repeats the "Aaron was arrested for downloading too many documents" lie (at least, it's a lie until someone refutes the way the NYT and other actual news outlets have been reporting it) and included a manifesto that amounted to "I don't think you should have this copyright, and that justifies me taking it from you".
The really frustrating thing is that I agree with many of the aims of these people. I want information to be free too, I think that a lot of academic journals are largely antiquated rackets that hold back academia and only exist by virtue of being so entrenched in the system. I should note that I don't consider myself an expert on the subject of these journals, but from talking to people who publish in them, neither the authors nor the peer reviewers are paid by the journal, the journal seems to just be an editorial brand, doing quality control and lending the prestige of its name to those they publish. That might have been the best way to handle large amounts of content years ago, but we have better ways now. (if someone who knows more than I wants to correct any of the preceding, by all means do so!)
I'm torn between my conviction that you change the system by changing the system, not just being a dick and ignoring it, and the knowledge that the very system in which I live was founded on revolution. What if this guy publishing a crapton of academic articles that previously lived behind an ivory tower paywall actually creates change? Systems are rarely known for their ability to accommodate change, and if the alternative is patiently waiting around for a critical mass of voices to be loud enough for long enough that it changes of its own accord, or provoking the government to meddle, does that make just saying "no", and forcing change ever ok? Where's the line? If the bar isn't set at least at having a critical mass of voices behind you, then you're using the same justification as any other vigilante (to wit, "I feel strongly about this, and that justifies my actions", followed by "but I'm right!" to differentiate you from other vigilantes), but when you're talking about niche issues where you're never going to get that critical mass because too few people care enough to even have a voice about it, or where the system one is trying to change is just too big and too entrenched, does that change things?
Anyway, I consider this a separate issue from Demand Progress' handling of the situation, so here's the response I sent them:
"Innocent until proven guilty" is not the same as "report only the information that makes him look innocent", and I suspect you know that. Your attempts to whitewash this situation are sad and offensive. Either refute what others are reporting as the facts of the case, have the conviction to paint this as an act of civil disobedience and make the case that what he wanted to do justified how he went about doing it, or say that while you support his goals we you do not condone his actions.
In my opinion, Demand Progress has demonstrated a marked lack of integrity in this fiasco, and I for one will never in good conscience be able to support it again.
Good day,
--Brad
Anyway, I think I'm done with them, but at least the thing's been thought-provoking? :(
And yes, I did have to resist the urge to end my message with "P.S. I said good day, sir!"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-07-24 03:36 pm (UTC)Then again, they could be pissy little fuckers like Mark Zuckerberg and panic whenever anything bad is said about them in their own organization. There's always some game being played.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-24 03:39 pm (UTC)No, I have nothing useful to add.
Almost completely tangential
Date: 2011-07-24 03:37 pm (UTC)Even here, you are noticing a difference between the events as reported by Demand Progress and the New York Times and you are choosing to trust the NYTs description. You are making that choice in part or entirely due to your opinion of the brand involved.
Academic journals are the same. I would love for them to be more readily and easily available *because* of the branding and the oversight that they have and get. Because of the ability to know who and what has signed/verified the information within them. Because I know that they are dedicated to doing the work to put out really good information. That is what makes them so valuable. I am far more comfortable when the incentives for publishing and reviewing are in line with the goal of discovery and accuracy over volume. (And yeah, publish or perish, but that's not the fault of the publications, that's a related system with its own holes - but a great example of how incentives guide behavior.)
I don't know how to balance availability, incentives for accuracy, and gatekeeping. Its an interesting thought exercise.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-25 01:22 am (UTC)Except for one point: this guy, and this one action, will not change jack shit (except maybe to make journals more paranoid about security, which will, perversely, have the opposite effect to the intended one). The only importance that these journals have is the fact that they are respected among researchers. If you want to change how that information is spread, you need to talk to the scientists.
In fact, however, the scientists are already talking; THIS is how change will happen. People are already on it. This guy's just another Look-How-Important-I-Am douchenozzle giving legitimate freedom-of-information folks a bad rep.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-26 03:58 am (UTC)