I think comparing it is reasonable and valid. Equaling it would be incorrect. What Meta is (allegedly, likely) doing here is several orders of magnitude worse, in scale and intention. I'd say both ethical and probably juristical.
But just because the scale and intention are different, does not mean we cannot compare both cases. They are not equal, far from it. But they are compareable.
> Parent comment implies Swartz was guilty of some degree
as a constructive criticism, you might want to reconsider your interpretation of
>"Remembering Aaron Swartz in this moment"
-> Which was arguably more innocent — scientific papers.
As in, both hold some degree of illegality (objectively), so when pointed that "he is guilty of some degree" is due to the jurisdiction laws (broken or not) regardless of societal/moral values that the context may apply.
perhaps a better answer would be to point that he shouldn't be punished for those actions.
