I was also surprised that it was the most-upvoted comment of the thread. And it also wasn't the only harsh comment in that thread. So if anyone deserves criticism, it's the Hacker News community for not showing a more compassionate side. I'd rather say it was the responsibility of the community as a whole rather than a single person.
It makes no sense to discuss if anything would be different if the HN community had responded differently to this story, but in general, giving an unsupportive collective response to someone who is down is probably not the best idea.
This is a general problem, not just for HN. The internet in the aggregate suffers from excessive binary thinking.
Everything has to be black and white, without room for colour or even shades of gray. So discussions tend to create their middle ground not by proportional movements but by jerks to +100 and -100. The more polarized the subject the stronger these reactions will be. Anything involving politics, a brush with the law, religion and so on will create those responses with a high degree of predictability.
Those who feel otherwise do not understand the U.S. Federal legal system. I would like to think Ed understood this when he wrote his original comment; I remember reading his comment at the time, and the only impression I got was that Aaron "dun goofed" and needed to skip to the part where he gets his light sentence. But that was under my assumption that even failing a jury trial with a strict judge couldn't result in more than a couple of years in prison.
> If the feds get their way you'll know exactly where to find him for the next 35 years.
I'm asking if people actually knew facts, not some tin-foil hat speculation (even if the tin-foil hat was right on the money).
See for example another comment from him at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529809
Edit:
There was nothing tinfoil about it. The indictment was publicly available, and a cursory search of news.google.com also brings up articles like this one
http://techland.time.com/2011/07/19/reddit-co-founder-aaron-...
Using upper limits only for theoretically possible court sentences is the same tactic the RIAA/MPAA uses to characterize copyright infringement damages, and it's just as much of a propaganda tactic in support of aaronsw as it is in support of those clowns.
That sounds like plenty 'major' for me. Have you been in prison? I have been in 'lock-up' for about 6 hours for the terrible crime of driving a foreign car in the Netherlands. I can tell you I did not enjoy it one little bit and the prospect of doing that 6 to 8 months would change me in ways that I would prefer not to think about. Jail is not funny, and multiple months are horrible, forget about years.
I've been in a submerged metal tube for some number of months. In many respects it's a worse environment than prison (though I can at least vouch for my fellow "inmates").
No email, no internet, no sleep, the stupid periscope watch with hydraulic oil dripping on your face.
Of course, I chose to do that. I would think that aaronsw knew that some nominal prison term would be a possibility of the choices he made, but I can only speak for myself.
I think a big difference with prison is that prison is not voluntary.
I tried to note that, but to be more clear: If you voluntarily take actions, over a long period of time, that involve the possibility of prison as a direct consequence of those actions, then I don't think you get to act completely surprised or indignant.
It's the reason I didn't complain too much (then or now) about my "plight"; as you say, I chose to be there.
Can we just say it's a good a lesson to us all?
I understand what the OP must be going through now; it'd make anybody feel miserable.
I'm pretty sure that it is.
(2) the facts as we know then today were not readily apparent back then (even to those that were actively seeking those facts)
(3) Ed has a longstanding history of compassion and care
(4) mistakes were made, but there is nobody to apologise to.
Can we please stop the mobbing? Thanks.