Feel free to run your own Sci-Hub, then. It's not like this is a massively collaborative project that she's the executive decision-maker of; it's largely just her.

A lot of the benefit of a site like this is moot if entire countries are banned for petty reasons. Imagine if the US was blocked because she didn't like the former president.

And, quite honestly, speaking about rights in the context of what amounts to a piracy site is kinda ironic.

It was less than a week, and I don't think it's happened more than once. If you just consider uptime, Sci-Hub is doing pretty well.

Don't you see a problem here?

>>Blocking access to ~free knowledge because one is offended

>it's largely just her

Yeah and that's the problem, with all dictatorships.

>It's not like this is a massively collaborative project

Who then uploads the content? Her alone?

She's the one delivering that access. And if you want to define sole decisionmaking power as dictatorship, I'm the dictator of the cookies I baked yesterday, too. You're free to provide access to the papers yourself.

Imagine your stated mission was to provide cookies for everyone in town because the local cookie factory charged $100 each. Then one kid said they didn't like the cookie, so you banned all kids from eating them.

You'd be within your rights, sure. But you would also be a going back and violating your own ideals.

So, sure, it's her site, her rules, but I think it's fair to expect someone to uphold their principals and be disappointed when they don't.

>I'm the dictator of the cookies I baked yesterday

Your cookies are not important for the scientific world, and she is NOT the baker of the Scientific papers, just a publisher, and since it's not her content she has even less rights to block a country from partially self made work.

Don't you see the irony in it?

>...to remove all barriers in the way of science (but don't name insects after me)

If she's just a publisher, feel free to publish it yourself.

I think you're side-stepping the point: It is valid to point out her self-contradiction of her ideals.

I can even understand her anger: she's been harassed with lawsuits in multiple countries and companies have probably had her personally investigated in those efforts. Paranoia isn't really even the appropriate word in that case.

But it's still an extreme overreaction and contradiction of her ideals to block an entire country over one person's insult.

> Who then uploads the content? Her alone?

Not lately, but usually she does a fair share of it. And she's the sole curator.

Yeah...when Fan's overlook the downsides.

Why do you block access (for a whole country) when someone gave your name to a wasp?

She’s not a native English speaker, fine. That doesn’t seem like a disqualifier to me.

I wrote that:

>Blocking access to ~free knowledge because one is offended is probably even worse...that's the mindset of dictators no?

What has that todo with language? Is Wikipedia blocking you (or your country) from access because you called an insect after Jimmy Wales?

I agree that it was petty of her but unless if anybody else steps up in her place in a substantial way and fight the major publishers, I think we should be a little lenient on her idiosyncracities. I don't know what the real story behind the block is but something tells me there was a lot of other baggage on her mind prior to hearing about the wasp.

Look, i think she makes a great job. But i hate it when those fanboys cannot see the irony of what she did...i would be proud like hell if a scientist would name a slug after me.

I do not disagree here. That being said, I fucking hate wasps so while I wouldn't hold a grudge over it, I'd definitely have mixed feelings about having a wasp named after me myself.