Get the ECT News Network Weekly Newsletter » View Sample | Subscribe
Welcome Guest | Sign In
E-Commerce Times TechNewsWorld CRM Buyer LinuxInsider

TechNewsWorld Talkback

ECT News Community   »   TechNewsWorld Talkback   »   Re: In 'The Internet's Own Boy,' the Good Guy Doesn't Win

Re: In 'The Internet's Own Boy,' the Good Guy Doesn't Win
Posted by: Erika Morphy 2014-06-27 17:14:15
See Full Story

The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz , a documentary directed and produced by Brian Knappenberger, is opening at theaters and online this weekend -- and re-opening wounds about the subject and his suicide. It is also serving as a reminder that often the good guy doesn't win, said tech analyst Rob Enderle. "I hope that is the biggest takeaway people watching this movie have," he added. "If you are going to fight this fight, be aware it will get really ugly."

Re: In 'The Internet's Own Boy,' the Good Guy Doesn't Win
Posted by: Kagehi 2014-06-28 17:48:49 In reply to: Erika Morphy
Didn't intend to do harm.. No, he intended to redress one. Those "academic" papers are held behind pay walls, such that researchers have to pay a large part of their own budget to just search for similar studies to their own, never mind read the content of them. This makes them the "opposite" of academic. Academic papers would be those easily accessible to anyone doing academic research *period*. When you start tacking fees on to them, they start becoming like patents, or copyright, which is applied not to protect anything, but to stifle competition.

We already have a massive problem with the publishing of studies, where by ones that push big, overblown, announcements of "significant effects" get published, while studies on the same thing, which show no effect at all, never make it to print, and the subsequent pushing of products to the market, based on one off "studies", some of which don't even qualify as valid (like using 30 people, without proper controls, then cherry picking the results, to reflect what you want to find, instead of what is actually happening in the study. Something that, in the past, when publishing was a tad more honest, and you didn't have to pay for read it, would get shot down very quickly, instead of finding its way into the next 50 fashion magazines, or a TV commercial babbling about anti-aging creams made from melons - one of the nonsenses things being pushed by one guy, with one study, to gullible stars, who haven't the best track record, at all, of avoiding total nonsense, and whole heartedly believing that its the sham product, instead of good production makeup, making them look younger.)

When the people doing the research can't get at the research, what do you expect to happen? Is it supposed to make it even "better" than before, when it was only the public that couldn't get at the correct information (and, is not priced so far out of getting at it that its ridiculous?)

It was also not real clear if the people suing had a leg to stand on, instead of just a shit load of money, with which to "Sue until we break you.", when the documents in question are *normally*, before they started trying to prevent this kind of thing, released to places where the public "can" get them, if they have a clue how to do so.

The reality is, even the people who buy the journals these things are in, hate the publishers, because they are being scammed for money, instead of spending that money on doing their jobs, and having it all locked away, where no one can get at it, without pumping money into some greedy journals, **undermines** effecting research. You can't do research if you can't check to see what other people have previously done, so you can either replicate the results (and thus prove there is something there), or see the mistakes (and thus, correct the prior research). What you end up with, instead, is thousands of one off experiments/studies, no idea who is doing what, and no clue what the facts are, because the only people who have any of them won't let you even see them, without buying into their increasingly expensive store house.

The public may not have had sympathy for Swartz, but among academia, only the idiots, didn't.
Jump to:
Would you license your personal data to advertising platforms if you were paid directly for it?
Yes -- So much of my personal data is already in the hands of advertisers anyhow; I may as well be paid for it.
Possibly -- It depends how much I would be compensated and how the data I authorize to share would be used and protected.
No -- I would not sell my personal data at any price.