I do wish we could be having this discussion in a more productive and conciliatory way, which has less of a chance of ending in an acrimonious split.
At the risk of stating the obvious: emailing organizations (anonymously, if you want) is a pretty good way of raising concerns with them.
Iâve emailed a number of EA organizations (including ACE) with question/âconcerns, and generally find they are responsive.
And Iâve been on the receiving side of emails as well, and usually am appreciative; I often didnât even consider that there could be some confusion or misinterpretation of what I said, and am appreciative of people who point it out.
I think that this totally misses the point. The point of this post isnât to inform ACE that some of the things theyâve done seem badâthey are totally aware that some people think this. Itâs to inform other people that ACE has behaved badly, in order to pressure ACE and other orgs not to behave similarly in future, and so that other people can (if they want) trust ACE less or be less inclined to support them.
I guess I donât know OPâs goals but yeah if their goal is to publicly shame ACE then publicly shaming ACE is a good way to accomplish that goal.
My point was a) sending a quick emails to someone about concerns you have with their work often has a very high benefit to cost ratio, and b) despite this, I still regularly talk to people who have concerns about some organization but have not sent them an email.
I think those claims are relatively uncontroversial, but I can say more if you disagree.
The key part of running feedback by an org isnât to inform the org of the criticism, itâs to hear their point of view, and see whether any events have been misrepresented (from their point of view). And, ideally, to give them a heads up to give a response shortly after the criticism goes up
I think private discussions are very important, but I donât feel good about a world where they entirely substitute for this kind of public disagreement. I think past Forum controversies of this kind have often been quite valuable.
Yep, definitely donât want people to swing too far in the opposite direction. Just commenting that âtalk to people about your concerns with themâ is a surprisingly underutilized approach, in my experience.
I talked to ACE (Jacy Reese/âAnthis in particular) in 2015 about ACE dramatically overstating effectiveness of leaflets. Jacy was extremely responsive in the call, and nothing changed until two years later when a dramatically more inflammatory article got wide distribution.
At the risk of stating the obvious: emailing organizations (anonymously, if you want) is a pretty good way of raising concerns with them.
Iâve emailed a number of EA organizations (including ACE) with question/âconcerns, and generally find they are responsive.
And Iâve been on the receiving side of emails as well, and usually am appreciative; I often didnât even consider that there could be some confusion or misinterpretation of what I said, and am appreciative of people who point it out.
I think that this totally misses the point. The point of this post isnât to inform ACE that some of the things theyâve done seem badâthey are totally aware that some people think this. Itâs to inform other people that ACE has behaved badly, in order to pressure ACE and other orgs not to behave similarly in future, and so that other people can (if they want) trust ACE less or be less inclined to support them.
I guess I donât know OPâs goals but yeah if their goal is to publicly shame ACE then publicly shaming ACE is a good way to accomplish that goal.
My point was a) sending a quick emails to someone about concerns you have with their work often has a very high benefit to cost ratio, and b) despite this, I still regularly talk to people who have concerns about some organization but have not sent them an email.
I think those claims are relatively uncontroversial, but I can say more if you disagree.
The key part of running feedback by an org isnât to inform the org of the criticism, itâs to hear their point of view, and see whether any events have been misrepresented (from their point of view). And, ideally, to give them a heads up to give a response shortly after the criticism goes up
That seems correct, but doesnât really defend Benâs point, which is what I was criticizing.
I think private discussions are very important, but I donât feel good about a world where they entirely substitute for this kind of public disagreement. I think past Forum controversies of this kind have often been quite valuable.
Yep, definitely donât want people to swing too far in the opposite direction. Just commenting that âtalk to people about your concerns with themâ is a surprisingly underutilized approach, in my experience.
I talked to ACE (Jacy Reese/âAnthis in particular) in 2015 about ACE dramatically overstating effectiveness of leaflets. Jacy was extremely responsive in the call, and nothing changed until two years later when a dramatically more inflammatory article got wide distribution.