I think the parent comment is relevant since the blog post (and subsequent comments here) praises the hacker/anti-institutionalist mentality of the Media Lab. Yet when Schwartz practiced altruistic, civil disobedience in line with that sentiment, MIT's response was to sue him until he killed himself. They've done a lot of cool things that I'm into, but let's not whitewash history.

The only link between Aaron Swartz and the Media Lab is that they hosted his memorial service.

Step one of not whitewashing history is to be accurate about it. You can't say that the Media Lab is an embarrassment to the MIT name when one of your pieces of evidence is that the rest of MIT - not the Media Lab - did something unconscionable. You can't hold organizations to account if your account is wrong.

And that's the danger with unrelated controversies and tangents - all of a sudden we need to have a discussion about the substance of that controversy and tangent. The angrier you are about something, the more important - and harder - it is to target your anger appropriately. Anger is a great tool. Make sure it is hitting what you intend for it to hit.

(In the interest of disclosure: I am an MIT alum who has never been particularly proud of my alma mater in general; I have no tie to the Media Lab.)

I could be wrong and am glad to be corrected if I am. It's not like I'm following MIT Media news all day. But did the Media Lab acknowledge and critique MIT for its actions? If so you're right, I shouldn't criticize the MIT Media Lab. But if not I consider them complicit.

Re: the Disobedience Award. I did a google search to find the speech they gave where they discuss why they didn't give it to him. https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/reflections-on-the-disobedie....

I'm glad they recognized his principled and disobedient activism, but there's no acknowledgement about MIT's role in his death, and ultimately they chose not to give him the award.

> I consider them complicit.

That's fine, but that's a different argument from the one being made, that the Media Lab is "absolute trash and an embarrassment to the MIT name."

> Yet when Schwartz practiced altruistic, civil disobedience in line with that sentiment, MIT's response was to sue him until he killed himself.

MIT arrested him for breaking into a closet to access the network. I've never heard anything about them suing him. JSTOR did some kind of settlement agreement. It was the feds prosecuting him for wire fraud etc that undoubtedly led to the suicide.

Sorry, but organisations need to be held to account.

But rarely are.

I think "cancel culture" has gone too far in all respects but that Stallman email was beyond the pale and he deserved to get kicked out of MIT for writing that on an MIT mailing list.

Yeah…

The sensitivities people have with the those mentioning rot and rampant prestige laundering in these institutions to the point its frowned on talking about it in association with the topic… banality of evil… lol