It is not true that he was sentenced to 35 years in prison by US authorities for transferring and sharing scientific articles from JSTOR. It is true that he killed himself.
Looks likely he would have been convicted, especially considering the whole suicide thing??
Basically the same thing, calling it misinformation implies its creating a perception of the incident that is unwarranted, where I would disagree that the distinction has any merit
I am genuinely disappointed that on an ostensibly science-related message board I see comments along the lines “this isn’t actually true, but it kinda-sorta is, therefore, inaccurate claims somehow aren't misinformation”. If all kinds of counter-factual things were true, then all kinds of things would be true: what is the point of this hand-waving to defend something that is riddled with untruths? Also, with whom did he purportedly share these documents? In 22 words, this person got no fewer than two things wrong and you are carrying water for what reason?
Law is not science, it's politics. This is a political distinction, not a matter of the laws of reality
Their comment wasn't a dissertation, i didn't expect extreme precision, I'm defending the spirit in which I believe that comment was posted, because I agree with it, simple as
It was wrong and it should be not wrong. Odd that that is a controversial statement and that you used Reddit-level reasoning about a dissertation when someone just wants others to not spread untruths.
I don't disagree it should have been phrased more accurately. The truest version is always the best, OP should probably add an edit to add that he wasn't sentenced he was charged with crimes that would result in that, however, The point of this post was not the legal distinction between charged and convicted
I think the detail you're arguing about is about as impactful as what color shirt someone was wearing in an otherwise true account of history.
I'm not endorsing misinforming people, thank you for correcting that bit of information, its does not change the essence of why this information is being shared or the conclusion it brings us to.
What about this is misinformation?
It is not true that he was sentenced to 35 years in prison by US authorities for transferring and sharing scientific articles from JSTOR. It is true that he killed himself.
After googling it it seems he was charged and those were the estimate of years if convicted so
So?
Looks likely he would have been convicted, especially considering the whole suicide thing??
Basically the same thing, calling it misinformation implies its creating a perception of the incident that is unwarranted, where I would disagree that the distinction has any merit
I am genuinely disappointed that on an ostensibly science-related message board I see comments along the lines “this isn’t actually true, but it kinda-sorta is, therefore, inaccurate claims somehow aren't misinformation”. If all kinds of counter-factual things were true, then all kinds of things would be true: what is the point of this hand-waving to defend something that is riddled with untruths? Also, with whom did he purportedly share these documents? In 22 words, this person got no fewer than two things wrong and you are carrying water for what reason?
Law is not science, it's politics. This is a political distinction, not a matter of the laws of reality
Their comment wasn't a dissertation, i didn't expect extreme precision, I'm defending the spirit in which I believe that comment was posted, because I agree with it, simple as
It was wrong and it should be not wrong. Odd that that is a controversial statement and that you used Reddit-level reasoning about a dissertation when someone just wants others to not spread untruths.
I don't disagree it should have been phrased more accurately. The truest version is always the best, OP should probably add an edit to add that he wasn't sentenced he was charged with crimes that would result in that, however, The point of this post was not the legal distinction between charged and convicted
I think the detail you're arguing about is about as impactful as what color shirt someone was wearing in an otherwise true account of history.
I'm not endorsing misinforming people, thank you for correcting that bit of information, its does not change the essence of why this information is being shared or the conclusion it brings us to.
With whom did he share these documents?