Thanks for explaining. This all makes some sense to me, but I still favor linking on balance.
(I don’t think this depends on what the post tells us about “what EAs think”. Whether the author of the post is an EA accurately stating their views, or a non-EA trying to harm EA, or whatever—in any case the post seems relevant for assessing how worried we should be about the impacts of certain discussions / social dynamics / political climate on the EA community.)
I do agree that it seems bad to signal boost that post indiscriminately. E.g. I think it would be bad to share without context on Facebook. But in a discussion on how worried we should beabout certain social dynamics I think it’s sufficiently important to look at examples of these dynamics.
EDIT: I do agree that the OP could have done more to avoid any suggestion of endorsement. (I thought there was no implied endorsement anyway, but based on your stated reaction and on a closer second reading I think there is room to make this even clearer.) Or perhaps it would have been best to explicitly raise the issue of whether that post was written with the intent to cause harm, and what this might imply for how worried we should be. Still, linking in the right way seems clearly better to me than not linking at all.
Thanks for explaining. This all makes some sense to me, but I still favor linking on balance.
(I don’t think this depends on what the post tells us about “what EAs think”. Whether the author of the post is an EA accurately stating their views, or a non-EA trying to harm EA, or whatever—in any case the post seems relevant for assessing how worried we should be about the impacts of certain discussions / social dynamics / political climate on the EA community.)
I do agree that it seems bad to signal boost that post indiscriminately. E.g. I think it would be bad to share without context on Facebook. But in a discussion on how worried we should be about certain social dynamics I think it’s sufficiently important to look at examples of these dynamics.
EDIT: I do agree that the OP could have done more to avoid any suggestion of endorsement. (I thought there was no implied endorsement anyway, but based on your stated reaction and on a closer second reading I think there is room to make this even clearer.) Or perhaps it would have been best to explicitly raise the issue of whether that post was written with the intent to cause harm, and what this might imply for how worried we should be. Still, linking in the right way seems clearly better to me than not linking at all.