I am not a lawyer, but on moral grounds they tricked us into believing we are using a common place of discussion. They got rich and they turned into a reality making machine.
Or now they just tried to erase the biggest collection of free scientific works. They side with Elsevier and others lawsuit in India(see also my previous post Breakthrough Science Society statement: Make knowledge accessible to all. No to banning Sci-Hub and LibGen).
Corporate media is now the enemy of the research people.
I am not sure if people really paid attention to the initial rush of the PR machinery (and the rash of “tech publications” that announced the idea of a “microblogging” website. Social media came out of nowhere and everyone jumped on to their platform. Truth aside, it is there website and they can moderate it to whatever extent they can. Yes, it is a philosophical argument that it is harmful for the diversity of views- but it is a democracy anyway. Choose the alternative platforms. There are plenty.
When I hand over the personal choices to a technology platform, I have to abide by their rules and regulations. It is simple. I don’t think that the fight against SciHub is akin to burning down the libraries. My stance on academic publishing is clear. It is a flawed metric to measure an individuals’ worth.
There are number of counter measures to the proposed ban. Learn to exercise them.