Al Jazeera's "Stream" blog yesterday compiled a representative selection of tweets on the #pdftribute, including one by YT, to my delighted surprise. But the reporting also illustrates what can get lost in translation on Twitter; the commentary prefacing my contribution reads:

The file-sharing was cause for debate online. Many hoped that #pdftribute would mark a new era of open access to academic work, while others recalled the risks of work without paywalls. 

That's technically correct as a compressed summary of the concerns articulated in my tweet and its linked post. But the reporting reads like it's positioning me in the anti-Open Access camp, which is completely incorrect: I'm not concerned with the "risks of work without paywalls" - I'm concerned with blithe exhortations to transgress paywalls, exposing scholars and students who do so to real legal risks (you know, like those Swartz faced, if not as steep, maybe). Tweet and learn, I guess. Crafting a 140-character message that accurately encapsulates an argument while courting interest demands a lot of thought and writing skill - it's a lot more work, at any rate, than scholarly tweeters tend to get credit for.