@eletious It sounds like you're trying to engage me in good faith so I'm dialing back my aggression, but I assure you I am not acting in bad faith. I don't support how he was treated, it was terrible and undeserved and the government's policy of loading you up with tons of excessive charges then offering you a plea bargain is disgusting. The punishment did not fit the crime. I just try to measure why reactions happen the way they do and the manner in which Swartz executed that act is going to get a bigger reaction than a boring copyright infringement case. He made his presence known by interfering with the function of a major university's network. when he was blocked he evaded the block and kept causing the problem. when he couldn't get around their blocks anymore he broke into the library and installed equipment on their network. You can argue that the damage caused by AI shit is bigger but it's also more indirect than literal breaking and entering. again he didn't deserve the treatment he got but what he did was overtly antagonistic and was going to get a response. I am not even sure that the difference in treatment in general is unfair because if you cause an immediate problem to people you are going to get an immediate response as opposed to creating a big problem that only really has legal liability consequence.

> bikeshedding does protect corporations from criticism, even if that's not your intent.

Even though I don't agree with your prior argument I concede this to some extent. although I am totally in favor of making OpenAI pay and I don't care if their business model can't survive if they have to pay. I literally am just peeved at hyperbolic arguments, which I still believe this (and the "fined for music piracy" comparison) are.