Name: Anonymous 2017-12-15 10:45
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices
So here's an interesting article in light of the ACS's push for ISPs to block Sci-Hub: Harvard can't afford to subscribe to paywalled journals and won't support faculty that edits for said journals.
As we all now, it's often under the pretense of proprietary, brickwalled studies that many corporations use as a pretense to work against the interest of governments, their citizens, and oftentimes the environment. It might not seem like these ivory tower academic journals have any affect on us unwashed masses or whatever--I mean, afterall, those plutocrats are going to go through with those actions regardless, right? Even if we get rid of this issue altogether, there's just going to be a new tool to fill that vacuum as a fallback rationale for greedy corporations and CEO fatcats with cartoon dollar signs in their eyes, but an open scientific dialogue gives the public a means for their own discourse.
This affected us very directly with a study funded by the EU on piracy which was suppressed by Hollywood that purported piracy had no effect on Hollywood's profits. Yeah, Hollywood would have abused their patrons regardless, but think about what that article could have done for public awareness.
People often say that Wikileaks is a disinformation agent, and they're right, in a sense. The Snowden leaks never told us--specialists and computer hobbyists--anything we didn't already know about the power structures of proprietary software, and, on some subconscious level, the average person probably knew, too, but it's not about that; it's about setting a precedent. The Snowden leaks told us nothing new, but they changed the public dialogue, which is why an event like this is so significant for us as citizens.
So here's an interesting article in light of the ACS's push for ISPs to block Sci-Hub: Harvard can't afford to subscribe to paywalled journals and won't support faculty that edits for said journals.
As we all now, it's often under the pretense of proprietary, brickwalled studies that many corporations use as a pretense to work against the interest of governments, their citizens, and oftentimes the environment. It might not seem like these ivory tower academic journals have any affect on us unwashed masses or whatever--I mean, afterall, those plutocrats are going to go through with those actions regardless, right? Even if we get rid of this issue altogether, there's just going to be a new tool to fill that vacuum as a fallback rationale for greedy corporations and CEO fatcats with cartoon dollar signs in their eyes, but an open scientific dialogue gives the public a means for their own discourse.
This affected us very directly with a study funded by the EU on piracy which was suppressed by Hollywood that purported piracy had no effect on Hollywood's profits. Yeah, Hollywood would have abused their patrons regardless, but think about what that article could have done for public awareness.
People often say that Wikileaks is a disinformation agent, and they're right, in a sense. The Snowden leaks never told us--specialists and computer hobbyists--anything we didn't already know about the power structures of proprietary software, and, on some subconscious level, the average person probably knew, too, but it's not about that; it's about setting a precedent. The Snowden leaks told us nothing new, but they changed the public dialogue, which is why an event like this is so significant for us as citizens.