If you pay attention to your pet every time it misbehaves, you wouldn't be surprised when it learns to misbehave whenever it wants your attention.

Some people fear the same applies to mad bombers and school shooters and terrorists: If misbehaving gets you in the news, makes you famous and gets books written about you...

While just not reading it likely has no effect, making this public post about it might dissuade others from reading and discourage manifesto publishing.

It seems like their energy is better spent educating themselves on the controversial material so that they can explain to people why they think the conclusions in it are wrong.

FWIW, I'm actually made more curious when people discourage me from reading something, so they may want to rethink the actual impact of that strategy.

I'm not though. It had the intended effect on me. I don't believe what he has to say is so revolutionary that I'm missing much by not reading it, and I agree with the sentiment that I'm respecting the Unabomber's goals by reading it - so I just wont. Good ideas are a dime a dozen, the tricky part is execution. Fortunately, murder is usually an ineffective way to affect public policies.

It's not about discouraging future murderers from publishing manifestos, it's about discouraging future manifesto-writers from murdering.

It's quite simple logic really. The less attention terrorists get, the less appealing terrorism becomes as a means to get attention.

See also: "The surest defense against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized." https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_b...

You seem to have it backwards. The goal is to discourage future manifesto-publishers from murdering.

Just as school shootings used to be a good way to get your face on TV, murder is a good way to market your manifesto. We can fix that.

1) they declare that this is not okay and they won't be reading anything like it

2) people reading the comment will think "maybe this is not the way to make people read my stuff"