As an initial matter, there any evidence that Ms. Joseph “[went] to TIME to use this guy as evidence that EA has a sexual assault problem”? Even if she did, it’s OK for people to share their stories in whatever medium they feel comfortable with. They should not feel the need to censor themselves because their story might make EA look bad.
There is no evidence Ms. Joseph told the TIME reporter anything that was untrue or unfair. The described conduct was wildly inappropriate, and I don’t think it is our place to criticize her reaction to it. Based on the presumptive identification of the other person, there seems to be a general consensus that he engaged in misconduct justifying a ban from EA and rationalist spaces.
The original poster, being “mini-famous”, has a relatively effective platform to present whatever information she would like to present. Most of us do not, and can only bring significant public attention to our concerns through the media or other intermediaries. The reality is that the intermediary controls a lot of the message that actually gets published, but I don’t think it is generally appropriate to attribute any problem with the intermediary’s spin on the source.
To those who would prefer individuals who have experienced harassment and abuse not go to the media with their stories, I would suggest working on a more effective internal mechanism to listen to these individuals. To the extent one thinks media reporting presents an inaccurate picture, I would suggest better data collection to illuminate the actual scope of the problem.
“Most can only bring significant public attention to our concerns through the media or other intermediaries.”
This is a very disempowering and false narrative. Anyone can write their accounts up in perfect detail on the forum, to the community health team, on Twitter (and tag relevant parties), over DM to organizers of the event where they experienced the problem, over DM to mutual friends or employers of the problematic person, over a message to broad community organizers, on any of dozens of EA FB groups or Slacks, and/or in a police report.
To me, your comment reads as though normal people would have little option but to go to the press and shrug when their stories are inevitably misrepresented or shared only in piecemeal in service of the narrative the journalist cares about rather than the single narrative aim of the victim. But that isn’t true. People can go to the press if they want I suppose, I wouldn’t suppress anyone, but I want to push back against your disempowered narrative for doing so.
Also a separate point: If I’m honest, your comment about OP just rubs me the wrong way. You say “The original poster, being ‘mini-famous’, has a relatively effective platform to present whatever information she would like to present.” Relatively effective at what, I wonder?
To rehash the lessons from within her post: Despite her massive platform, she has not been meaningfully able to handle false rumors about her. Her fame is a bug when it comes to truthseeking about her and her experiences, not a feature. Additionally, she deals with death threats and stalkers and surely must speak carefully. I think it is kind of gross to imply her situation has the upper hand compared to other women when she is also a huge victim of mistreatment by men and doubtless has to be aware of risks every day. Her platform is also not “relatively-effective” at keeping her safe.
Like your sentence reads like “well that’s easy for you to say Aella” but it isn’t easy for her to say. That’s the thing.
I said “significant public attention.” None of the methods you described would likely generate public attention anywhere near what could be generated through talking to a major media publication or through a statement by someone who has over 100,000 Twitter followers. Steps like talking to Community Health might bring someone a degree of private redress, but if they feel that”significant public attention” should be drawn to the problem they experienced, they will have to go elsewhere. (Also, much harassment is not a criminal offense, so a police report isn’t going anywhere.)
I recognize that people are criminally harassing the original poster and strongly condemn that. Bringing public attention to bad behavior does not guarantee that it will stop, especially when the harassers are cloaked behind the veil of anonymity or are otherwise immune from pressure. But she can get her story out to tens to hundreds of thousands of people pretty easily in a way that most people can’t.
But didn’t some reports against EA men go viral before the Time piece? Doesn’t that disprove your thesis?
I guess it also feels a bit like moving the goalposts to speak about seeking “public attention” like that in itself is a good thing. I remember watching a video from “Ms. Joseph” and she just wanted the problems handled, I thought so anyway. She didn’t seem to care about”public attention”. So it seems very important to clarify that if you or anyone else just wants a problem handled, that going to the press may be one of the worst ways to get that done. After all, a journalist can’t even answer questions and ever help you understand what went wrong. And after all, it sounds to me from what you and others say that she did end up reporting someone on a national scale who was already banned from EA events, which was then reported as proof that EA presently has a problem. Soooo something went wrong there. You say it isn’t our place to criticize her reaction and like, yeah, maybe I’ll give you that, it’s a shitty situation. And sometimes the press may be the right choice (as I say I’m trying not to discourage or reduce freedom to speak to the press).
But avoiding criticizing here doesn’t mean We should shrug about going to the press and act like it’s the natural next step here. We can certainly offer better alternatives, try to inform… After all, the press actually did a bad job here and, as an intermediary, tend to do a bad job around any delicate personal issues and experiences one may have. Like, most people don’t want significant public attention. They want issues handled. Journalists can help with that of needed but damn is there ever a long list of cons, and nobody needs to feel like it’s their only option.
Making one’s content go viral is extremely difficult and finicky, with an extremely low chance that any particular content will do that.
I don’t think I’m moving the goalposts given that Aella wrote unfavorably about “going to TIME . . . .” And this lines up with a broader pattern: Rochelle Shen is quoted in the article about pressure to “keep it all in the family.” So I think it’s important to be very clear that we are not criticizing people’s personal choice to go to the media before we start talking about the downsides of doing so. I don’t think the original post did that, and my concern goes double with the post author is a mini-famous figure. (I do agree with you that the downsides of talking to the media are often significant, and appreciate your contributions to the conversation on that point.)
Each of the women whose experienced were included in the article chose to speak to TIME. I’m pretty sure each of them knew that TIME reporters do not have subpoena power and that talking to a reporter is likely to lead to one’s story receiving significant public attention. Thus, I conclude that each of them decided that talking to the TIME reporter and bringing significant public attention to what happened to them was a good idea.
I suspect that talking to the media was the first choice of exactly zero of the sources. Few people would prefer having stories of them being harassed or abused in the pages of a major media outlet. And I suspect most of the women understood, at least to some extent, that talking to a reporter meant surrendering most control over how their story was portrayed. Yet each made a decision to talk.
From all that, I infer from the women’s decision to talk to TIME that they felt either that their own situation had not been appropriately dealt with, or that sexual harassment/abuse in EA was still a big enough problem to justifythe downsides of going to the media. That’s why I suggested “working on a more effective internal mechanism to listen to these individuals” so they wouldn’t feel like talking to a reporter was their best option. (And yes, I recognize the challenges in designing and implementing such a mechanism.)
I think we both agree that EA should aim toward a world in which no one who experiences harassment or abuse within the community feels that going to the media is necessary.
[Edit: now I have more agreement with @Jason that the internal systems need work. I’m personally still impressed by the CH team’s work and don’t want people to believe official EA avenues are fundamentally broken or anything, but yes there is greater need for internal improvement than I thought. See @Lauren Maria ’s response to me below]
Fair points. Well, I don’t necessarily agree that the “internal mechanisms to listen to these individuals” needs work, as I think that there are current avenues to know that SA in EA was being handled or plans were being made for things to be handled, and/or ways to find out that one’s case was not the fault of EA or even performed by an EA man (before reporting it to Time with claim of such). But the proof is in the pudding that these were not publicized or promoted enough.
So I do agree (and have written elsewhere) that EA dropped the ball on announcing intention to make changes (and changes made) in response to SA complaints back in November. It is understandable that some women felt they needed another step. We don’t know that any complainants would have been paying enough attention to notice announcements, but I bet at least some would have, and the Time journalist could have noticed at least.
And FWIW I strong-agreed with another comment you wrote elsewhere that we need a solid list of criteria for who is and is not an EA, because we also need to be able to clearly name cases that are within EA jurisdiction and which EAs have the ability to handle vs those which are not. So that resentment doesn’t build toward EA in cases where it is not warranted.
Well, I don’t necessarily agree that the “internal mechanisms to listen to these individuals” needs work, as I think that there are current avenues to know that SA in EA was being handled or plans were being made for things to be handled, and/or ways to find out that one’s case was not the fault of EA or even performed by an EA man (before reporting it to Time with claim of such)
I think we can say that it does need work, based on these recent posts, and the CEA team seems to be acknowledging this (which is great!).
In reference to your previous conversation with Jason, It also seems that these people going to the press may have actually encouraged the CEA to have an external investigation and for Owen Cotton-Barratt to step down.
As an initial matter, there any evidence that Ms. Joseph “[went] to TIME to use this guy as evidence that EA has a sexual assault problem”? Even if she did, it’s OK for people to share their stories in whatever medium they feel comfortable with. They should not feel the need to censor themselves because their story might make EA look bad.
There is no evidence Ms. Joseph told the TIME reporter anything that was untrue or unfair. The described conduct was wildly inappropriate, and I don’t think it is our place to criticize her reaction to it. Based on the presumptive identification of the other person, there seems to be a general consensus that he engaged in misconduct justifying a ban from EA and rationalist spaces.
The original poster, being “mini-famous”, has a relatively effective platform to present whatever information she would like to present. Most of us do not, and can only bring significant public attention to our concerns through the media or other intermediaries. The reality is that the intermediary controls a lot of the message that actually gets published, but I don’t think it is generally appropriate to attribute any problem with the intermediary’s spin on the source.
To those who would prefer individuals who have experienced harassment and abuse not go to the media with their stories, I would suggest working on a more effective internal mechanism to listen to these individuals. To the extent one thinks media reporting presents an inaccurate picture, I would suggest better data collection to illuminate the actual scope of the problem.
“Most can only bring significant public attention to our concerns through the media or other intermediaries.”
This is a very disempowering and false narrative. Anyone can write their accounts up in perfect detail on the forum, to the community health team, on Twitter (and tag relevant parties), over DM to organizers of the event where they experienced the problem, over DM to mutual friends or employers of the problematic person, over a message to broad community organizers, on any of dozens of EA FB groups or Slacks, and/or in a police report.
To me, your comment reads as though normal people would have little option but to go to the press and shrug when their stories are inevitably misrepresented or shared only in piecemeal in service of the narrative the journalist cares about rather than the single narrative aim of the victim. But that isn’t true. People can go to the press if they want I suppose, I wouldn’t suppress anyone, but I want to push back against your disempowered narrative for doing so.
Also a separate point: If I’m honest, your comment about OP just rubs me the wrong way. You say “The original poster, being ‘mini-famous’, has a relatively effective platform to present whatever information she would like to present.” Relatively effective at what, I wonder?
To rehash the lessons from within her post: Despite her massive platform, she has not been meaningfully able to handle false rumors about her. Her fame is a bug when it comes to truthseeking about her and her experiences, not a feature. Additionally, she deals with death threats and stalkers and surely must speak carefully. I think it is kind of gross to imply her situation has the upper hand compared to other women when she is also a huge victim of mistreatment by men and doubtless has to be aware of risks every day. Her platform is also not “relatively-effective” at keeping her safe.
Like your sentence reads like “well that’s easy for you to say Aella” but it isn’t easy for her to say. That’s the thing.
I said “significant public attention.” None of the methods you described would likely generate public attention anywhere near what could be generated through talking to a major media publication or through a statement by someone who has over 100,000 Twitter followers. Steps like talking to Community Health might bring someone a degree of private redress, but if they feel that”significant public attention” should be drawn to the problem they experienced, they will have to go elsewhere. (Also, much harassment is not a criminal offense, so a police report isn’t going anywhere.)
I recognize that people are criminally harassing the original poster and strongly condemn that. Bringing public attention to bad behavior does not guarantee that it will stop, especially when the harassers are cloaked behind the veil of anonymity or are otherwise immune from pressure. But she can get her story out to tens to hundreds of thousands of people pretty easily in a way that most people can’t.
But didn’t some reports against EA men go viral before the Time piece? Doesn’t that disprove your thesis?
I guess it also feels a bit like moving the goalposts to speak about seeking “public attention” like that in itself is a good thing. I remember watching a video from “Ms. Joseph” and she just wanted the problems handled, I thought so anyway. She didn’t seem to care about”public attention”. So it seems very important to clarify that if you or anyone else just wants a problem handled, that going to the press may be one of the worst ways to get that done. After all, a journalist can’t even answer questions and ever help you understand what went wrong. And after all, it sounds to me from what you and others say that she did end up reporting someone on a national scale who was already banned from EA events, which was then reported as proof that EA presently has a problem. Soooo something went wrong there. You say it isn’t our place to criticize her reaction and like, yeah, maybe I’ll give you that, it’s a shitty situation. And sometimes the press may be the right choice (as I say I’m trying not to discourage or reduce freedom to speak to the press).
But avoiding criticizing here doesn’t mean We should shrug about going to the press and act like it’s the natural next step here. We can certainly offer better alternatives, try to inform… After all, the press actually did a bad job here and, as an intermediary, tend to do a bad job around any delicate personal issues and experiences one may have. Like, most people don’t want significant public attention. They want issues handled. Journalists can help with that of needed but damn is there ever a long list of cons, and nobody needs to feel like it’s their only option.
Making one’s content go viral is extremely difficult and finicky, with an extremely low chance that any particular content will do that.
I don’t think I’m moving the goalposts given that Aella wrote unfavorably about “going to TIME . . . .” And this lines up with a broader pattern: Rochelle Shen is quoted in the article about pressure to “keep it all in the family.” So I think it’s important to be very clear that we are not criticizing people’s personal choice to go to the media before we start talking about the downsides of doing so. I don’t think the original post did that, and my concern goes double with the post author is a mini-famous figure. (I do agree with you that the downsides of talking to the media are often significant, and appreciate your contributions to the conversation on that point.)
Each of the women whose experienced were included in the article chose to speak to TIME. I’m pretty sure each of them knew that TIME reporters do not have subpoena power and that talking to a reporter is likely to lead to one’s story receiving significant public attention. Thus, I conclude that each of them decided that talking to the TIME reporter and bringing significant public attention to what happened to them was a good idea.
I suspect that talking to the media was the first choice of exactly zero of the sources. Few people would prefer having stories of them being harassed or abused in the pages of a major media outlet. And I suspect most of the women understood, at least to some extent, that talking to a reporter meant surrendering most control over how their story was portrayed. Yet each made a decision to talk.
From all that, I infer from the women’s decision to talk to TIME that they felt either that their own situation had not been appropriately dealt with, or that sexual harassment/abuse in EA was still a big enough problem to justifythe downsides of going to the media. That’s why I suggested “working on a more effective internal mechanism to listen to these individuals” so they wouldn’t feel like talking to a reporter was their best option. (And yes, I recognize the challenges in designing and implementing such a mechanism.)
I think we both agree that EA should aim toward a world in which no one who experiences harassment or abuse within the community feels that going to the media is necessary.
[Edit: now I have more agreement with @Jason that the internal systems need work. I’m personally still impressed by the CH team’s work and don’t want people to believe official EA avenues are fundamentally broken or anything, but yes there is greater need for internal improvement than I thought. See @Lauren Maria ’s response to me below]
Fair points. Well, I don’t necessarily agree that the “internal mechanisms to listen to these individuals” needs work, as I think that there are current avenues to know that SA in EA was being handled or plans were being made for things to be handled, and/or ways to find out that one’s case was not the fault of EA or even performed by an EA man (before reporting it to Time with claim of such). But the proof is in the pudding that these were not publicized or promoted enough.
So I do agree (and have written elsewhere) that EA dropped the ball on announcing intention to make changes (and changes made) in response to SA complaints back in November. It is understandable that some women felt they needed another step. We don’t know that any complainants would have been paying enough attention to notice announcements, but I bet at least some would have, and the Time journalist could have noticed at least.
And FWIW I strong-agreed with another comment you wrote elsewhere that we need a solid list of criteria for who is and is not an EA, because we also need to be able to clearly name cases that are within EA jurisdiction and which EAs have the ability to handle vs those which are not. So that resentment doesn’t build toward EA in cases where it is not warranted.
I think we can say that it does need work, based on these recent posts, and the CEA team seems to be acknowledging this (which is great!).
In reference to your previous conversation with Jason, It also seems that these people going to the press may have actually encouraged the CEA to have an external investigation and for Owen Cotton-Barratt to step down.
Yeah I def think you and Jason are more right now than I did even a few hours ago. Edited.