Three days ago, internet activist Aaron Swartz killed himself, as has been reported widely across social and traditional media. He killed himself on the second anniversary of being arrested for having downloaded thousands of academic articles from JSTOR via a laptop hidden in a supply closet and connected to MIT’s open network. The trial was due to begin next month, and Aaron was defending himself against no less than 13 felony charges, looking at 35 years in prison and fines of over a million dollars. He never actually published the articles he downloaded.

You can read a lot more about Aaron Swartz, the charges against him and his illustrious history of building technologies and systems we rely upon in social media and traditional media (I recommend Lawrence Lessig’s accusation of the prosecution as bullies, danah boyd’s thoughts about why more people didn’t speak in his support before his death, the expert witness for Aaron’s defence explaining how trumped up the case appeared to be, Cory Doctorow’s memorial to him, NRK’s piece describing much of the background and the New York Times piece describing how people have rallied around his causes after his death. I actually had dinner with Aaron once, ten years ago, at Mark Bernstein’s house in a snowstorm. I remember him from that night just as that really, really smart kid, but later followed his work on RSS, and his innovative analysis of Wikipedia edits allowing him to show who actually writes the Wikipedia. I’m ashamed to say I hadn’t read about the charges against him until this weekend.

This weekend, though, so much was said about Aaron and about open access. #PDFtribute is a Twitter hashtag where researchers have been putting articles online and posting links to Twitter with the label #PDFtribute. A dedicated website is archiving them all. My papers are all openly available already. When I have published in closed journals I have requested permission to also put a copy on my website and in BORA, and I’ve always received permission, though sometimes with an embargo where I have to wait a few months after publication. My books aren’t open access, though, and next time I publish a book I will try to find an open alternative.

It seems terrible that it took Aaron’s death to raise awareness of the ridiculous enforcement of copyright, to the extent that the government threatens a kid who downloaded too many academic papers from JSTOR with a punishment fit for terrorism. Of course it’s not the first time. There have been many waves in our growing acceptance of and push for open access to research. Last year over 13000 researchers (including 13 from UiB) declared they would boycott Elsevier, the British government required all research funded by Research Councils UK to be published in open access channels from April 2013, and 162 universities require (or, uh, in UiB’s case, gently request) their researchers to publish in open access channels or place a copy of publications in an open access repository like BORA.

Open access to research publications is one of the most important research policy questions internationally today. We need to push nationally and internationally for governments and professional organisations to require open access publication, and perhaps national copyright law needs to be changed to ensure that publicly funded research is available to the public.

Changing our awareness – as Aaron Swartz’s death has tragically done – is just as important. If every scholar in the world required open access, there would be no problem. I wonder how many employees of the University of Bergen actually know that we are “requested” to publish in open access channels? I wonder how many researchers know that open access publications are cited more, as Dag W. Aksnes, leader of the UiB bibliometry research group recently explained to a seminar (Here’s a video of his talk, starting just after 01:26 hours into the video)? I wonder how many of us know that almost all journals – even closed journals – will accept a scholar’s publishing a copy freely online?

This is something I obviously care deeply about personally and professionally. If our team for leading UiB is elected (follow us on Facebook!) I will work to improve open access scholarship at UiB and in Norway too. Heck, obviously I’ll be working for that whether or not we’re elected. Of course.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. […] some articles with me. It is ridiculous how locked up and unavailable research is today, something Jill Walker Rettberg also has written about and I totally agree with her on this […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.