Hi! Just flagging that I’ve marked this post as a “Personal Blog” post, based on the Forum’s policy on politics.
(This means those who’ve opted in to seeing “Personal Blog” posts on the Frontpage will see it there, while others should only see it in Recent Discussion, on the All Posts page, and on the relevant topic/tag pages.)
I trust your judgement on this, but I think the Community section might be more fitting. This post is mainly about whether FTX money that was supposedly being spent to support pandemic preparedness was instead going to candidates that would further enrich FTX. Plenty of people (myself included) have lowered the visibility of Community posts on their frontpage, but those who are interested in SBF’s corruption would probably want this on their frontpage. The real discussion here is about SBF’s potential dishonesty, not about any of the four topics outlined in the policy:
...the following types of post will remain in the “Personal Blog” category (meaning that they will not appear on the Forum’s homepage, but will appear in “All Posts,” in the author’s profile, and on any relevant tag pages):
Posts advocating for or against a specific political candidate or group of candidates (e.g. “Why effective altruists should vote for candidate Y”)
This policy also applies to posts which neutrally solicit opinions on a particular candidate, since those opinions are generally going to be advocacy for or against the candidate, which risks leading to the same issues.
Posts discussing policy issues with only tenuous connection to the main EA cause areas (e.g. “What John Smith’s position on gun rights means for EA voters”)
Some political content will continue to receive “Frontpage” categorization:
Posts discussing policy issues that are directly connected to core EA cause areas (e.g. this post on a campaign to boost Canadian development assistance)
I agreed with you at first, but upon reflection I think Lizka might be correct. While the majority of the post doesn’t seem to fall within the topics for demotion to Personal Blog, the section on Lobbying Strategy does seem pretty partisan. If you’re being strict with the rule (and the mods do have a decent legal reason to do so) then I think this ruling might make sense.
I think this is a reasonable application of existing policy, although the “community” tag would have also been a reasonable application.
However, I think the policy is wrong insofar as the interest in not burying credible allegations of improper conduct of interest to the community as a large should supersede the “politics=personal blog” rule. In other words, an exception to cover this sort of post should be written into the rules.
My guess is the rule is there to avoid imperiling not-for-profit status; if so the mods don’t really have much choice. I agree with you we don’t want to bury such things, but I think the best solution here is just to hive the partisan part (which was I think also the least important part) into a separate post.
I haven’t thought about it much, but I would be very surprised if this was a concern on the US end at least (or by moving it to personal blog post would allay any concern). It’s not the organization’s own speech.
Hi! Just flagging that I’ve marked this post as a “Personal Blog” post, based on the Forum’s policy on politics.
(This means those who’ve opted in to seeing “Personal Blog” posts on the Frontpage will see it there, while others should only see it in Recent Discussion, on the All Posts page, and on the relevant topic/tag pages.)
Is there any chance you could reconsider? This post is not about my personal politics, or advocacy about any political candidates.
It’s about the perceived misuse of an EA-linked fund called Protect Our Future.
I trust your judgement on this, but I think the Community section might be more fitting. This post is mainly about whether FTX money that was supposedly being spent to support pandemic preparedness was instead going to candidates that would further enrich FTX. Plenty of people (myself included) have lowered the visibility of Community posts on their frontpage, but those who are interested in SBF’s corruption would probably want this on their frontpage. The real discussion here is about SBF’s potential dishonesty, not about any of the four topics outlined in the policy:
I agreed with you at first, but upon reflection I think Lizka might be correct. While the majority of the post doesn’t seem to fall within the topics for demotion to Personal Blog, the section on Lobbying Strategy does seem pretty partisan. If you’re being strict with the rule (and the mods do have a decent legal reason to do so) then I think this ruling might make sense.
This feels underjustified. Irregularities in an EA related political fund seem different from a post about who to vote for.
I think this is a reasonable application of existing policy, although the “community” tag would have also been a reasonable application.
However, I think the policy is wrong insofar as the interest in not burying credible allegations of improper conduct of interest to the community as a large should supersede the “politics=personal blog” rule. In other words, an exception to cover this sort of post should be written into the rules.
My guess is the rule is there to avoid imperiling not-for-profit status; if so the mods don’t really have much choice. I agree with you we don’t want to bury such things, but I think the best solution here is just to hive the partisan part (which was I think also the least important part) into a separate post.
I haven’t thought about it much, but I would be very surprised if this was a concern on the US end at least (or by moving it to personal blog post would allay any concern). It’s not the organization’s own speech.