The Forum moderation team has been made aware that Kerry Vaughn published a tweet thread that, among other things, accuses a Forum user of doing things that violate our norms. Most importantly:
Where he crossed the line was his decision to dox people who worked at Leverage or affiliated organizations by researching the people who worked there and posting their names to the EA forum
The user in question said this information came from searching LinkedIn for people who had listed themselves as having worked at Leverage and related organizations.
This is not âdoxingâ and itâs unclear to us why Kerry would use this term: for example, there was no attempt to connect anonymous and real names, which seems to be a key part of the definition of âdoxingâ. In any case, we do not consider this to be a violation of our norms.
At one point Forum moderators got a report that some of the information about these people was inaccurate. We tried to get in touch with the then-anonymous user, and when we were unable to, we redacted the names from the comment. Later, the user noticed the change and replaced the names. One of CEAâs staff asked the user to encode the names to allow those people more privacy, and the user did so.
Kerry says that a former Leverage staff member ârequests that people not include her last name or the names of other people at Leverageâ and indicates the user broke this request. However, the post in question requests that the authorâs last name not be used in reference to that post, rather than in general. The comment in question doesnât refer to the former staff memberâs post at all, and was originally written more than a year before the post. So we do not view this comment as disregarding someoneâs request for privacy.
Kerry makes several other accusations, and we similarly do not believe them to be violations of this Forumâs norms. We have shared our analysis of these accusations with Leverage; they are, of course, entitled to disagree with us (and publicly state their disagreement), but the moderation team wants to make clear that we take enforcement of our norms seriously.
We would also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that CEAâs Community Health team serves as a point of contact for the EA community, and if you believe harassment or other issues are occurring we encourage you to reach out to them.
Iâve found that communicating feedback/âcorrections often works best when I write something that approximates what I wouldâve wished the other person had originally written.
Because of the need to sync more explicitly on a number of background facts and assumptions (and due to not having time for edits/ârevisions), my draft is longer than I think a moderatorâs comment would need to be, were the moderation team to be roughly on the same page about the situation. While I am the Cathleen being referenced, I have had minimal contact with Leverage 2.0 and the EA Forum moderation team, so I expect this draft to be imperfect in various ways, while still pointing at useful and important parts of reality.
Here Iâve made an attempt to rewrite what I wish Ben West had posted in response to Kerryâs tweet thread:
The Forum moderation team has been made aware that Kerry Vaughn published a tweet thread that, among other things, accuses a Forum user of doing things that violate our norms. Most importantly:
Where he crossed the line was his decision to dox people who worked at Leverage or affiliated organizations by researching the people who worked there and posting their names to the EA forum.
We care a lot about ensuring that the EA Forum is a welcoming place where people are free to discuss important issues related to world improvement. While disagreement and criticism are an important part of that, we want to be careful not to allow for abuse to take place on our platform, and so we take such reports seriously.
After reviewing the situation, we have compiled the following response (our full review is still in process but we wanted to share what we have so far while the issue is live):
While Leverage was not a topic that we had flagged as âsensitiveâ back in Sept 2019 when the then-anonymous user originally made his post, the subsequent discussion around the individuals and organizations who were part of the Leverage/âParadigm ecosystem prior to its dissolution in June 2019 has led it to be classified as a sensitive topic to which we expend more scrutiny and are more diligent about enforcing our norms.
In reviewing the particular post referenced above, we found a number of odd elements:
In posing and then answering his own âQuestionâ on the EA Forum, the user makes his accusation of Paradigm (the org) being a front or a secret replacement for Leverage (the org) despite having previously acknowledged the recent dissolution of the Leverage/âParadigm ecosystem (and in a context where the two organizations were publicly known to be closely connected).
The user largely acts as if he is sharing work history discovered on LinkedIn as his primary argument despite only 2 of the 13 named individuals having Leverage listed on their LinkedIn profiles.
The user names 4 additional people as having worked at Leverage despite citing no evidence of that fact (they did not have Leverage on their LinkedIn profiles).
The user then names 7 additional individuals who did not have Leverage on their LinkedIn profiles and who the user also did not believe to have originally worked at Leverage.
The user neglects to include any context or timelines from LinkedIn, e.g. whether there had been a recent change in work history at the point of the ecosystem dissolution, whether the individuals in question started at Leverage and then moved to Paradigm, started at Paradigm and then moved to Leverage, or started at either Leverage or Paradigm and then moved on to other projects. It is also unclear which, if any, continued to work at either Leverage or Paradigm after the ecosystem dissolution.
More than 2 years later, after reading a clarifying and detailed post about the relevant history of Leverage and Paradigm (which included a request to protect peopleâs identities) and discovering that the Forum mods had removed the named individuals from his comment, the only edit the user decided to make was to deanonymize the names heâd compiled of people previously affiliated with the Leverage ecosystem.
When this post was initially brought to our attention in July of 2020, along with an explanation of possible negative consequences for the people listed (including ~4 individuals who the user was spreading potential misinformation about), we tried to get in touch with the then-anonymous user, and when we were unable to, we redacted the names from the comment and left an explanation for how the comment could make its point without using the personal information of the named individuals.
At the time, we had been informed that the user was mistaken about the work history for some of the people he listed, in large part due to relying on his incorrect personal assumptions. We did not consider the way that some of the 4 (and possibly others) mightâve intentionally excluded Leverage from their work histories, as we were focused on the ones who were incorrectly identified as having worked at Leverage and the potential consequences of that misinformation. Without yet knowing or investigating the full extent of the anonymous userâs posting history across multiple accounts, we did not suspect a pattern of hostile posts. Because of these factors, we did not evaluate whether this post might be a case of doxing.
In Dec 2021, Cathleen, one of the 4 who had been listed as working at Leverage (despite no record on LinkedIn), published a detailed account of her experience at Leverage/âParadigm. In it, she shared her perspective on harassment and ill-will that had come from the EA and Rationalist community members, and the negative effects of misinformation spread via public community forums. She explained why she had intentionally excluded Leverage from her LinkedIn many years prior and asked that people protect her identity as well as the identities of others from the Leverage ecosystem due to the risk of cancellation and harassment.
A few days later, the EA Forum user (who had revealed his real identity a couple months prior) returned to his anonymous post from Sept 2019 and deanonymized the first and last names of all 13 individuals he had previously named. This included Cathleen as well as the other 3 individuals who he attributed to Leverage (despite no record on LinkedIn). He accompanied the edits with a false/âmisleading comment (using the anonymous account) minimizing the substantive merit of prior requests for corrections to his post and claiming that all of the relevant information had actually been originally drawn from LinkedIn.
(At a cursory glance, itâs difficult to determine the most natural interpretation of the scope of Cathleenâs request, in order to assess the likelihood that the user was knowingly violating her wishes. We initially had a quite narrow interpretation, reading the quote out of context, but I think the situation becomes clearer if you take the time to read her entire post or the section that the quote was pulled from, entitled âWe want to move forward with our lives (and not be cancelled)â, which includes a direct reference to LinkedIn/âher intent to keep her work history private.)
After receiving a new complaint about the potential harm of listing individualsâ names, including the spread of misinformation caused by the userâs updated post, we reviewed the case and this time found no violation. As a compromise, we did offer to ask the user if they would be willing to encode the full names to help protect the individuals from potential negative effects arising from a simple google search.
We have since realized that many people (including people on our moderation team) took the user at his word without carefully reviewing the post. We had become confused about the specifics (falsely believing that he was sharing publicly available information from LinkedIn and thus believing that the information could be reasonably treated as true and that the objections raised were splitting hairs). We also did not accurately recognize the general nature/âintent of his original post nor the potential negative effects of allowing the information to stand, and we did not evaluate the deanonymizing edits in the context of Cathleenâs recent public request and voiced concerns.
In Oct 2021, when the user had revealed his identity and his use of multiple anonymous accounts, we also failed to review the complete body of evidence and the ways that his actions had potentially violated our norms (e.g. using multiple anonymous accounts to convey similar views on a topic), as well as notice that the full pattern of posts indicated a type of ill-will that we discourage and that is especially relevant given the sensitive nature of the topic of Leverage/âParadigm.
In retrospect, we recognize that while we would like to give users the benefit of the doubt, when there are complaints of doxing, harassment, or other poor behavior, it makes sense for us to look more carefully at the situation and potentially draw on CEAâs Community Health teamâs expertise in assisting individuals who flag that theyâve been wronged by a user on the Forum.
Something else we did not consider (because we unfortunately donât have the bandwidth to track all the goings on in the EA and Rationalist communities) is that the level of threat experienced by people who had previously been part of the Leverage ecosystem had become quite high. In evaluating cases of disclosing private information or even assembling and publishing public information, context matters.
As an example:
On the face of it, it seems fine to have openly communist views or be LGBTQ, but history has shown us that during certain eras, e.g. the Second Red Scare in the US, creating and posting lists of such people (even if true or otherwise individually knowable) would likely subject them to harassment or worse.
It is not an excuse if someone else could create a similarly damaging list, and it doesnât seem right to ask people to hide their work history from potential employers on a professional networking platform for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from being subject to defamatory public posts from ill-willed and/âor ill-informed EAs and Rationalists. It is already unfortunate that the damage to the reputation of the relevant orgs has made it difficult for individuals to decide when and how to associate themselves with their former projects.
Guilt by association is not a good faith argument here, and at a minimum, it seems reasonable to honor individual wishes for Forum users to refrain from using their full names in affiliation with prior projects when requested (and to be careful not to do so in a way that falsely implies that the person is (or should be) ashamed of their affiliation).
After reviewing the overall situation, we think itâs important for users as well as moderators to recognize that posts about former Leverage/âParadigm staff do not happen in a vacuum. We strongly condemn the sharing of information about an individualâs prior professional or social affiliation in a way that intentionally or negligently exposes them to undue negative consequences.
If people are proud of their work at an organization but feel the need to disassociate themselves from that org publicly, it seems like something has gone wrong.
Given the overall pattern of posts from this userâs accounts across the EA Forum as well as Less Wrong from 2018-2021, it seems plausible to our team that the actions of this user may have actually been a significant contributing factor in fomenting negative sentiment towards this group of people. In light of that, making the decision to list their full names in this comment in 2019 and then editing the comment to include them again in 2021, after Cathleenâs detailed post (which includes information relevant to the commentâs hypothesis as well as a request and argument for privacy), we find it harder to defend an interpretation where there was not an intent to cause harm to the named individuals.
Further, it is our understanding that only a fraction of those named worked for Leverage or Paradigm at the time of the original post, and only ~1 to 2 of those named worked for Leverage or Paradigm at the time of the subsequent deanonymizing edit; given that, and with the assumption that the argument for both relevancy of the post on the EA Forum as well as the argument for wrongdoing relies solely on the pattern of employment at these orgs, the weighing of potential benefit/âvalue vs. cost/âharm to prior project members seems particularly clear.
Intimidation and harassment can be executed in subtle ways, and while intent can be hard to ascertain, we encourage participants on the Forum to put in extra effort to ward against their posts landing in a gray area.
We donât think that every case of bad behavior needs to fit neatly into our listed norms (and in evaluating cases like these, we also think it makes sense to revisit our listed norms to see if we should make changes for clarity or scope)[1], but it seems clear to us that the type of behavior exhibited by this user across their anonymous accounts is neither generous nor collaborative and it also seems likely to interfere with good discourse (not least of all by creating a hostile environment for some members of the community).
While we wish we wouldâve done better, given our knowledge at the time, we donât see this as a major failing, but we do recognize the harm that was caused and we want to emphasize that the use of anonymous accounts to harass individuals or groups is not something that we tolerate.
We have referred this case to the CEA Community Health team for further review. They will look at the totality of content from this user on this and related topics, examining patterns, severity, as well as the time period spanned by relevant posts and comments on the EA Forum as well as LW, as a way of assessing potential and actual negative impacts and intent. With the permission of relevant parties, they will also review registered complaints about the userâs behavior. With their input, we will deliberate further and decide whether there is mitigating action that the Forum moderators can and should take in this particular case.
If you have a world improvement related issue that you believe needs public attention but arenât sure how to navigate it while minimizing unnecessary harm, we encourage you to reach out to the CEA Community Health team who can help organize your thoughts and perhaps mediate a discussion where more information can be exchanged before escalating to a public post. We recognize that in a situation where you suspect a conspiracy or are otherwise suspicious of othersâ actions, it may be harder to prioritize the discussion norms of the Forum, but it is in those moments that the norms are most important to respect.
Be kind.
Stay civil, at the minimum. Donât sneer or be snarky. In general, assume good faith. We may delete unnecessary rudeness and issue warnings or bans for it.
Substantive disagreements are fine and expected. Disagreements help us find the truth and are part of healthy communication.
Stay on topic.
No spam. This forum is for discussions about improving the world, not the promotion of services.
Be honest.
Donât mislead or manipulate.
Communicate your uncertainty and the true reasons behind your beliefs as much as you can.
*(The Forum moderators are currently grappling with an issue that may be relevant to situations involving sensitive topics like these: it does not violate our norms to inadvertently publish false or misleading information â but in the case that a correction or material clarification is made and the OP doesnât update their post or comment, an argument could be made that the user is either in violation of the norm of scout mindset/âwillingness to update their view, or (if they do update their understanding but donât update their post) they could be in violation of knowingly/âdeliberately spreading misinformation. We generally have not wanted to act as the arbiters of truth, so itâs not yet clear how to best moderate a situation like this.)
To share a brief thought, the above comment gives me a bad juju because it puts a contested perspective into a forceful and authoritative voice, while being long enough that one might implicitly forget that this is a hypothetical authority talking[1]. So it doesnât feel to me like a friendly conversational technique. I would have preferred it to be in the first person.
Garcia MĂĄrquez has a similar but longer thing going on in The Handsomest Drowned Man In The World, where everything after âif that magnificent man had lived in the villageâ is a hypothetical.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I must confess that I found the response confusing as you seem to be responding to claims slightly (though importantly!) different from the ones I made in my Twitter post.
Specifically, my view is (1) you are mistaken about the definition of doxing and have instead provided a definition of deanonymization; (2) this personâs behavior meets the definitions of doxing; (3) norms that allow these posts would also allow more serious abuses.
Iâd also like to clarify that I am not at the moment accusing you or the EA Forum moderators of failing to enforce EA Forum rules or norms in this case. I am not deeply familiar with the EA Forum rules or norms, so I am indifferent on this question.
This poster violated the norms that I think would be reasonable for a high-quality discussion forum. I also think this poster violated standards of reasonable behavior for a person with high-status membership in an intellectual community. I leave the question of EA Forum rules and norms to you and your team.
Additionally, while I alluded to but did not directly discuss this in the Twitter thread, the EA Forum moderation team took several actions that lessened the harm this poster intended to cause. While I think further actions are warranted, I would nevertheless like to express my gratitude to the team for what they have already done.
On the definition of doxing
The user in question said this information came from searching LinkedIn for people who had listed themselves as having worked at Leverage and related organizations. This is not âdoxingâ and itâs unclear to us why Kerry would use this term: for example, there was no attempt to connect anonymous and real names, which seems to be a key part of the definition of âdoxingâ.
This is not the definition of doxing.
A simple internet search reveals the following definitions:
Wikipedia: âDoxing or doxxing is the act of publicly providing personally identifiable information about an individual or organization, usually via the Internet. . . . Doxing may be carried out for reasons such as online shaming, extortion, and vigilante aid to law enforcementâ
Urban Dictionary: âUsing private information gleaned from the internet to attack someone with whom you disagree, often by publishing their personal info, opening them to abuse and possibly, danger.â
What you provide is the definition of the much narrower activity of deanonymization. I agree that the posterâs behavior is not deanonymization. I never indicated otherwise.
Deanonymization is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for doxing. It is possible to dox someone even if they maintain no anonymous identities (e.g., by publishing non-public information that does not pertain to an anonymous identity for the purposes of harassment). It is also possible to reveal a personâs anonymous identity without doxing them if the reveal involves neither ill intent nor ill effects.
Why the posterâs behavior is doxing
Doxing has two important components: (1) revealing private information; (2) with ill-intent. Below I argue that the posterâs behavior meets both of these standards.
The information was private
In the EA Forum comment where the doxing occurred, the poster says the following (emphasis mine):
Paradigm Academy does not list its team on its website. However, a quick search on Linkedin yields 16 results (13 with public profiles) for people at Paradigm Academy. Of these 13 profiles, 7 include experience at Leverage Research or allied organizations, and a further 4 are well-known to have worked for Leverage Research.
The term âwell-knownâ indicates that the information is not on their LinkedIn profiles, but is known to the poster. Thus, they relied on non-public information to associate the people with the organizations.
However, even if the poster had used only information from LinkedIn profiles and not their own knowledge, this would still constitute a reveal of private information because âprivate informationâ is context-dependent. Almost all canonical cases of doxing involve taking information that is findable on the public internet (albeit with difficulty) and then revealing that information in an adversarial context.
Consider, for example, the high-profile case of the doxing of Scott Alexander. Scott Alexanderâs real name was not private in the sense of ânot findable on the public internet.â Indeed, it could be revealed with a little bit of dedicated Googling. It was also widely known inside the EA and Rationality community. The Timesâ threat to publish his real name was nevertheless a threat to dox him because it was not well-known to the readership of The Times.
Who was employed at Leverage and Paradigm was not well-known to the members of the EA community. Most of those who worked at Leverage and Paradigm had little interaction with the EA community. Thus, the information revealed was private in the relevant sense.
The poster acted with ill-intent
There are several ways to see that the poster acted with ill intent.
(1) The social context of this post is that there was a deterioration of the relationship between the Effective Altruism and Leverage Research communities. This is easy to see by reviewing the comments on the âBasic Factsâ post, which are substantially negative. While one might dispute that the negativity is fair, accurate, or deserved, it was not considered so by members of Leverage or Paradigm staff. Thus, the EA Forum is an adversarial context from the perspective of Leverage and Paradigm employees.
(2) A review of the posting history of the anonymoose and throwaway accounts indicates that their primary goal was to spread negative information about Leverage and Paradigm.
(3) The context in which the people are doxed is in response to the following âquestion:â âTo what extent is Paradigm Academy a front organization for, or a covert rebrand of Leverage Research?â
This is, of course, a quite blatant attempt to insulate nefariousness where none is warranted. There was never any attempt to conceal the relationship between Leverage and Paradigm by the staff of either organization. No information to indicate otherwise is ever presented by the poster.
(4) There is simply no reason to include the peopleâs names except for the purposes of doxing. The point of the comment is that there is a heavy association between people that worked at Paradigm and those that worked at Leverage. There is no reason that specific names need to be included to make this point.
(5) The post violated the letter and spirit of Cathleenâs request.
On this point, Ben indicates the following:
Kerry says that a former Leverage staff member ârequests that people not include her last name or the names of other people at Leverageâ and indicates the user broke this request. However, the post in question requests that the authorâs last name not be used in reference to that post, rather than in general. The comment in question doesnât refer to the former staff memberâs post at all, and was originally written more than a year before the post. So we do not view this comment as disregarding someoneâs request for privacy.
However, the full request by Cathleen is as follows (emphasis mine):
In discussions of this post (the content of which I canât predict or control), Iâd ask that you just refer to me as Cathleen, to minimize the googleable footprint. And I would also ask that, as Iâve done here, you refrain from naming others whose identities are not already tied up in all this.
As there is some confusion on this point, it is important to be clear. The central complaint in the Twitter thread is that *5 days* after Cathleenâs post, the poster edited their comment to add the names of Leverage and Paradigm employees back to the comment, including Cathleenâs last name. This violates Cathleenâs request.
Ben is correct that the comment originally occurred substantially before Cathleenâs post. But this is immaterial. The point is that the poster re-added the names after the request had been made.
Norms that allow these posts would also allow more serious abuses
A further issue with this understanding of EA norms is that it would allow more serious abuses on the EA Forum. If this is not clear, I can provide some examples.
However, even if the poster had used only information from LinkedIn profiles and not their own knowledge, this would still constitute a reveal of private information because âprivate informationâ is context-dependent.
If you list your organizational affiliation on LinkedIn (and if you are indeed correct that Paradigm Academy was not trying to be a cover for Leverage Research that shielded it from public scrutiny), then I donât think you get to complain when someone quickly googles you and finds your LinkedIn profile.
Like, if Scott Alexander had listed his real name on his about page, or on LinkedIn, connected to his pseudonym, then yeah, I would have also had very little sympathy for the objections to the New York Times. There clearly are degrees of what kind of connections you can make here, and searching an organization on LinkedIn really does not cross any obvious line here.
Maybe you are objecting to drawing a connection between Leverage Research and Paradigm Academy, but you are also saying that nobody was saying that Paradigm Academy was intentionally trying to not appear to be part of what was broadly known as âLeverageâ, so I donât understand how you can make both of these arguments at the same time.
If you list your organizational affiliation on LinkedIn (and if you are indeed correct that Paradigm Academy was not trying to be a cover for Leverage Research that shielded it from public scrutiny), then I donât think you get to complain when someone quickly googles you and finds your LinkedIn profile.
First, as I noted in my response to Ben, some of the information included in the doxing was from the posterâs personal knowledge and not from the peopleâs LinkedIn profiles. Thus, you canât defend the doxing by saying that the information was publicly available. It simply wasnât.
Second, I am not complaining about someone quickly googling anyone and finding their LinkedIn profile. I am complaining about making it easier to harass people by posting a central repository of information about those people on a forum frequented by people with a history of harassing them.
It is certainly the case that former Leveragers took the release of their names on the EA forum as an attempt to invite harassment by members of the EA community. We were contacted by former Leveragers to see if there was anything we could do to get the names removed for this very reason.
I suspect the actual crux of the discussion here is that most EAs are unaware of the history of poor and bizarre behavior towards Leverage/âParadigm by members of the EA community. To help with the knowledge gap, Iâm considering writing a Twitter thread that will share some of the most egregious examples.
At this point, the moderators are trying to focus on any practical steps we should take. Given that the names in question are encoded, and no one currently listed in the comment has reached out to us, we do not plan to take further action. Anyone who feels that private or incorrect information about themselves is posted on the Forum is always free to contact us.
Could you explain whatâs not practical about these simple steps that you could take:
1) Create an EA Forum policy against sockpuppeting, and apply it retroactively to this case. This might naturally result in deleting the offending posts or adding a notification indicating they are sockpuppets.
2) Remove the encoded names and replace them with numbers per the edit your team made originally.
3) Change the word âdoxingâ to âdeanonymizingâ in the following sentence from the Guide to Norms (since the behavior you intend to prohibit is not doxing):
Doxing â or revealing someoneâs real name if they are anonymous on the Forum or elsewhere on the internet â is prohibited
[Disclaimer, I have very little context on this & might miss something obvious and important]
In discussions of this post (the content of which I canât predict or control), Iâd ask that you just refer to me as Cathleen, to minimize the googleable footprint. And I would also ask that, as Iâve done here, you refrain from naming others whose identities are not already tied up in all this.
As there is some confusion on this point, it is important to be clear. The central complaint in the Twitter thread is that *5 days* after Cathleenâs post, the poster edited their comment to add the names of Leverage and Paradigm employees back to the comment, including Cathleenâs last name. This violates Cathleenâs request.
AFAICT the disagreement between Kerry and Ben stems from interpreting the second part of Cathleenâs ask differently. There seem to be two ways of reading the second part: 1. Asking people to refrain from naming others who are not already tied into this in general. 2. Asking people to refrain from naming others who are not already tied into this in discussions of her post.
To me, it seems pretty clear that she means the latter, given the structure of the two sentences. If she was aiming for the first interpretation, I think she should have used a qualifier like âin generalâ in the second sentence. In the current formulation, the âAndâ at the beginning of the sentence connects the first ask/âsentence very clearly to the second. I guess this can be up for debate, and one could interpret it differently, but I would certainly not fault anyone for going with interpretation 2.[1]
If we assume that 2 is the correct reading, Kerryâs claim (cited above) does not seem relevant anymore /â Benâs original remark (cited below) seems correct. The timeline of edits doesnât change things. Benâs original remark (emphasis mine):
The comment in question doesnât refer to the former staff memberâs post at all, and was originally written more than a year before the post. So we do not view this comment as disregarding someoneâs request for privacy.
Even if she meant interpretation 1, it is unclear to me that this would be a request that I would endorse other people enforcing. Her request in interpretation 2 seems reasonable, in part because it seems like an attempt to avoid people using her post in a way she doesnât endorse. A general âdonât associate others with this organisationâ would be a much bigger ask. I would not endorse other organisations asking the public not to connect its employees to them (e.g. imagine a GiveWell employee making the generic ask not to name other employees/âcollaborators in posts about GiveWell), and the Forum team enforcing that.
I disagree with that interpretation especially given the context of Cathleenâs post. It includes lengthy discussions of poor and bizarre behavior by members of the EA community toward Leverage/âParadigm staff.
I think reading Cathleenâs post and then re-adding her name is either an intentional violation of her wishes or, at a minimum, shows a reckless disregard for her request for privacy.
In any case, I donât think this issue is central. The original comment already was doxing given the context, which includes the âquestionâ to which it was a reply, the posterâs overall pattern of behavior, and the history of very poor behavior towards Leverage/âParadigm staff by members of the EA community. The posterâs behavior after reading Cathleenâs request for privacy simply makes their intention clearer.
Cathleen has also now commented above which I think clarifies how her request was meant to be taken. Hereâs a quote (as context, sheâs formatted her comment to be an idea for how CEA might have responded instead):
(At a cursory glance, itâs difficult to determine the most natural interpretation of the scope of Cathleenâs request, in order to assess the likelihood that the user was knowingly violating her wishes. We initially had a quite narrow interpretation, reading the quote out of context, but I think the situation becomes clearer if you take the time to read her entire post or the section that the quote was pulled from, entitled âWe want to move forward with our lives (and not be cancelled)â, which includes a direct reference to LinkedIn/âher intent to keep her work history private.)
Another question I wanted to ask is whether the EA Forum has rules against creating sock puppet accounts. This is defined as follows:
Wikipedia: âOnline, it came to be used to refer to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.â
Urban dictionary: âA false identity adopted by trolls and other malcontents to support their own postings.â
I ask because it appears to me that the poster acted deceptively in managing their multiple anonymous accounts by (1) using a second anonymous account to reply to their first anonymous account; (2) promoting the actions of their anonymous account from their public account without disclosing that they were behind the anonymous account.
Most forums Iâve been a part of have rules against sockpuppeting, but reviewing the EA Forum rules and guidelines, I did not see anything about that.
The Forum moderation team has been made aware that Kerry Vaughn published a tweet thread that, among other things, accuses a Forum user of doing things that violate our norms. Most importantly:
The user in question said this information came from searching LinkedIn for people who had listed themselves as having worked at Leverage and related organizations.
This is not âdoxingâ and itâs unclear to us why Kerry would use this term: for example, there was no attempt to connect anonymous and real names, which seems to be a key part of the definition of âdoxingâ. In any case, we do not consider this to be a violation of our norms.
At one point Forum moderators got a report that some of the information about these people was inaccurate. We tried to get in touch with the then-anonymous user, and when we were unable to, we redacted the names from the comment. Later, the user noticed the change and replaced the names. One of CEAâs staff asked the user to encode the names to allow those people more privacy, and the user did so.
Kerry says that a former Leverage staff member ârequests that people not include her last name or the names of other people at Leverageâ and indicates the user broke this request. However, the post in question requests that the authorâs last name not be used in reference to that post, rather than in general. The comment in question doesnât refer to the former staff memberâs post at all, and was originally written more than a year before the post. So we do not view this comment as disregarding someoneâs request for privacy.
Kerry makes several other accusations, and we similarly do not believe them to be violations of this Forumâs norms. We have shared our analysis of these accusations with Leverage; they are, of course, entitled to disagree with us (and publicly state their disagreement), but the moderation team wants to make clear that we take enforcement of our norms seriously.
We would also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that CEAâs Community Health team serves as a point of contact for the EA community, and if you believe harassment or other issues are occurring we encourage you to reach out to them.
How I wish the EA Forum had responded
Iâve found that communicating feedback/âcorrections often works best when I write something that approximates what I wouldâve wished the other person had originally written.
Because of the need to sync more explicitly on a number of background facts and assumptions (and due to not having time for edits/ârevisions), my draft is longer than I think a moderatorâs comment would need to be, were the moderation team to be roughly on the same page about the situation. While I am the Cathleen being referenced, I have had minimal contact with Leverage 2.0 and the EA Forum moderation team, so I expect this draft to be imperfect in various ways, while still pointing at useful and important parts of reality.
Here Iâve made an attempt to rewrite what I wish Ben West had posted in response to Kerryâs tweet thread:
The Forum moderation team has been made aware that Kerry Vaughn published a tweet thread that, among other things, accuses a Forum user of doing things that violate our norms. Most importantly:
We care a lot about ensuring that the EA Forum is a welcoming place where people are free to discuss important issues related to world improvement. While disagreement and criticism are an important part of that, we want to be careful not to allow for abuse to take place on our platform, and so we take such reports seriously.
After reviewing the situation, we have compiled the following response (our full review is still in process but we wanted to share what we have so far while the issue is live):
While Leverage was not a topic that we had flagged as âsensitiveâ back in Sept 2019 when the then-anonymous user originally made his post, the subsequent discussion around the individuals and organizations who were part of the Leverage/âParadigm ecosystem prior to its dissolution in June 2019 has led it to be classified as a sensitive topic to which we expend more scrutiny and are more diligent about enforcing our norms.
In reviewing the particular post referenced above, we found a number of odd elements:
In posing and then answering his own âQuestionâ on the EA Forum, the user makes his accusation of Paradigm (the org) being a front or a secret replacement for Leverage (the org) despite having previously acknowledged the recent dissolution of the Leverage/âParadigm ecosystem (and in a context where the two organizations were publicly known to be closely connected).
The user largely acts as if he is sharing work history discovered on LinkedIn as his primary argument despite only 2 of the 13 named individuals having Leverage listed on their LinkedIn profiles.
The user names 4 additional people as having worked at Leverage despite citing no evidence of that fact (they did not have Leverage on their LinkedIn profiles).
The user then names 7 additional individuals who did not have Leverage on their LinkedIn profiles and who the user also did not believe to have originally worked at Leverage.
The user neglects to include any context or timelines from LinkedIn, e.g. whether there had been a recent change in work history at the point of the ecosystem dissolution, whether the individuals in question started at Leverage and then moved to Paradigm, started at Paradigm and then moved to Leverage, or started at either Leverage or Paradigm and then moved on to other projects. It is also unclear which, if any, continued to work at either Leverage or Paradigm after the ecosystem dissolution.
More than 2 years later, after reading a clarifying and detailed post about the relevant history of Leverage and Paradigm (which included a request to protect peopleâs identities) and discovering that the Forum mods had removed the named individuals from his comment, the only edit the user decided to make was to deanonymize the names heâd compiled of people previously affiliated with the Leverage ecosystem.
When this post was initially brought to our attention in July of 2020, along with an explanation of possible negative consequences for the people listed (including ~4 individuals who the user was spreading potential misinformation about), we tried to get in touch with the then-anonymous user, and when we were unable to, we redacted the names from the comment and left an explanation for how the comment could make its point without using the personal information of the named individuals.
At the time, we had been informed that the user was mistaken about the work history for some of the people he listed, in large part due to relying on his incorrect personal assumptions. We did not consider the way that some of the 4 (and possibly others) mightâve intentionally excluded Leverage from their work histories, as we were focused on the ones who were incorrectly identified as having worked at Leverage and the potential consequences of that misinformation. Without yet knowing or investigating the full extent of the anonymous userâs posting history across multiple accounts, we did not suspect a pattern of hostile posts. Because of these factors, we did not evaluate whether this post might be a case of doxing.
In Dec 2021, Cathleen, one of the 4 who had been listed as working at Leverage (despite no record on LinkedIn), published a detailed account of her experience at Leverage/âParadigm. In it, she shared her perspective on harassment and ill-will that had come from the EA and Rationalist community members, and the negative effects of misinformation spread via public community forums. She explained why she had intentionally excluded Leverage from her LinkedIn many years prior and asked that people protect her identity as well as the identities of others from the Leverage ecosystem due to the risk of cancellation and harassment.
A few days later, the EA Forum user (who had revealed his real identity a couple months prior) returned to his anonymous post from Sept 2019 and deanonymized the first and last names of all 13 individuals he had previously named. This included Cathleen as well as the other 3 individuals who he attributed to Leverage (despite no record on LinkedIn). He accompanied the edits with a false/âmisleading comment (using the anonymous account) minimizing the substantive merit of prior requests for corrections to his post and claiming that all of the relevant information had actually been originally drawn from LinkedIn.
(At a cursory glance, itâs difficult to determine the most natural interpretation of the scope of Cathleenâs request, in order to assess the likelihood that the user was knowingly violating her wishes. We initially had a quite narrow interpretation, reading the quote out of context, but I think the situation becomes clearer if you take the time to read her entire post or the section that the quote was pulled from, entitled âWe want to move forward with our lives (and not be cancelled)â, which includes a direct reference to LinkedIn/âher intent to keep her work history private.)
After receiving a new complaint about the potential harm of listing individualsâ names, including the spread of misinformation caused by the userâs updated post, we reviewed the case and this time found no violation. As a compromise, we did offer to ask the user if they would be willing to encode the full names to help protect the individuals from potential negative effects arising from a simple google search.
We have since realized that many people (including people on our moderation team) took the user at his word without carefully reviewing the post. We had become confused about the specifics (falsely believing that he was sharing publicly available information from LinkedIn and thus believing that the information could be reasonably treated as true and that the objections raised were splitting hairs). We also did not accurately recognize the general nature/âintent of his original post nor the potential negative effects of allowing the information to stand, and we did not evaluate the deanonymizing edits in the context of Cathleenâs recent public request and voiced concerns.
In Oct 2021, when the user had revealed his identity and his use of multiple anonymous accounts, we also failed to review the complete body of evidence and the ways that his actions had potentially violated our norms (e.g. using multiple anonymous accounts to convey similar views on a topic), as well as notice that the full pattern of posts indicated a type of ill-will that we discourage and that is especially relevant given the sensitive nature of the topic of Leverage/âParadigm.
In retrospect, we recognize that while we would like to give users the benefit of the doubt, when there are complaints of doxing, harassment, or other poor behavior, it makes sense for us to look more carefully at the situation and potentially draw on CEAâs Community Health teamâs expertise in assisting individuals who flag that theyâve been wronged by a user on the Forum.
Something else we did not consider (because we unfortunately donât have the bandwidth to track all the goings on in the EA and Rationalist communities) is that the level of threat experienced by people who had previously been part of the Leverage ecosystem had become quite high. In evaluating cases of disclosing private information or even assembling and publishing public information, context matters.
As an example:
On the face of it, it seems fine to have openly communist views or be LGBTQ, but history has shown us that during certain eras, e.g. the Second Red Scare in the US, creating and posting lists of such people (even if true or otherwise individually knowable) would likely subject them to harassment or worse.
It is not an excuse if someone else could create a similarly damaging list, and it doesnât seem right to ask people to hide their work history from potential employers on a professional networking platform for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from being subject to defamatory public posts from ill-willed and/âor ill-informed EAs and Rationalists. It is already unfortunate that the damage to the reputation of the relevant orgs has made it difficult for individuals to decide when and how to associate themselves with their former projects.
Guilt by association is not a good faith argument here, and at a minimum, it seems reasonable to honor individual wishes for Forum users to refrain from using their full names in affiliation with prior projects when requested (and to be careful not to do so in a way that falsely implies that the person is (or should be) ashamed of their affiliation).
After reviewing the overall situation, we think itâs important for users as well as moderators to recognize that posts about former Leverage/âParadigm staff do not happen in a vacuum. We strongly condemn the sharing of information about an individualâs prior professional or social affiliation in a way that intentionally or negligently exposes them to undue negative consequences.
If people are proud of their work at an organization but feel the need to disassociate themselves from that org publicly, it seems like something has gone wrong.
Given the overall pattern of posts from this userâs accounts across the EA Forum as well as Less Wrong from 2018-2021, it seems plausible to our team that the actions of this user may have actually been a significant contributing factor in fomenting negative sentiment towards this group of people. In light of that, making the decision to list their full names in this comment in 2019 and then editing the comment to include them again in 2021, after Cathleenâs detailed post (which includes information relevant to the commentâs hypothesis as well as a request and argument for privacy), we find it harder to defend an interpretation where there was not an intent to cause harm to the named individuals.
Further, it is our understanding that only a fraction of those named worked for Leverage or Paradigm at the time of the original post, and only ~1 to 2 of those named worked for Leverage or Paradigm at the time of the subsequent deanonymizing edit; given that, and with the assumption that the argument for both relevancy of the post on the EA Forum as well as the argument for wrongdoing relies solely on the pattern of employment at these orgs, the weighing of potential benefit/âvalue vs. cost/âharm to prior project members seems particularly clear.
Intimidation and harassment can be executed in subtle ways, and while intent can be hard to ascertain, we encourage participants on the Forum to put in extra effort to ward against their posts landing in a gray area.
We donât think that every case of bad behavior needs to fit neatly into our listed norms (and in evaluating cases like these, we also think it makes sense to revisit our listed norms to see if we should make changes for clarity or scope)[1], but it seems clear to us that the type of behavior exhibited by this user across their anonymous accounts is neither generous nor collaborative and it also seems likely to interfere with good discourse (not least of all by creating a hostile environment for some members of the community).
While we wish we wouldâve done better, given our knowledge at the time, we donât see this as a major failing, but we do recognize the harm that was caused and we want to emphasize that the use of anonymous accounts to harass individuals or groups is not something that we tolerate.
We have referred this case to the CEA Community Health team for further review. They will look at the totality of content from this user on this and related topics, examining patterns, severity, as well as the time period spanned by relevant posts and comments on the EA Forum as well as LW, as a way of assessing potential and actual negative impacts and intent. With the permission of relevant parties, they will also review registered complaints about the userâs behavior. With their input, we will deliberate further and decide whether there is mitigating action that the Forum moderators can and should take in this particular case.
If you have a world improvement related issue that you believe needs public attention but arenât sure how to navigate it while minimizing unnecessary harm, we encourage you to reach out to the CEA Community Health team who can help organize your thoughts and perhaps mediate a discussion where more information can be exchanged before escalating to a public post. We recognize that in a situation where you suspect a conspiracy or are otherwise suspicious of othersâ actions, it may be harder to prioritize the discussion norms of the Forum, but it is in those moments that the norms are most important to respect.
*(The Forum moderators are currently grappling with an issue that may be relevant to situations involving sensitive topics like these: it does not violate our norms to inadvertently publish false or misleading information â but in the case that a correction or material clarification is made and the OP doesnât update their post or comment, an argument could be made that the user is either in violation of the norm of scout mindset/âwillingness to update their view, or (if they do update their understanding but donât update their post) they could be in violation of knowingly/âdeliberately spreading misinformation. We generally have not wanted to act as the arbiters of truth, so itâs not yet clear how to best moderate a situation like this.)
To share a brief thought, the above comment gives me a bad juju because it puts a contested perspective into a forceful and authoritative voice, while being long enough that one might implicitly forget that this is a hypothetical authority talking[1]. So it doesnât feel to me like a friendly conversational technique. I would have preferred it to be in the first person.
Garcia MĂĄrquez has a similar but longer thing going on in The Handsomest Drowned Man In The World, where everything after âif that magnificent man had lived in the villageâ is a hypothetical.
(fwiw I didnât mind the format and felt like this was Cathleen engaging in good faith.)
I would have so much respect for CEA if they had responded like this.
Hi Ben,
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I must confess that I found the response confusing as you seem to be responding to claims slightly (though importantly!) different from the ones I made in my Twitter post.
Specifically, my view is (1) you are mistaken about the definition of doxing and have instead provided a definition of deanonymization; (2) this personâs behavior meets the definitions of doxing; (3) norms that allow these posts would also allow more serious abuses.
Iâd also like to clarify that I am not at the moment accusing you or the EA Forum moderators of failing to enforce EA Forum rules or norms in this case. I am not deeply familiar with the EA Forum rules or norms, so I am indifferent on this question.
This poster violated the norms that I think would be reasonable for a high-quality discussion forum. I also think this poster violated standards of reasonable behavior for a person with high-status membership in an intellectual community. I leave the question of EA Forum rules and norms to you and your team.
Additionally, while I alluded to but did not directly discuss this in the Twitter thread, the EA Forum moderation team took several actions that lessened the harm this poster intended to cause. While I think further actions are warranted, I would nevertheless like to express my gratitude to the team for what they have already done.
On the definition of doxing
This is not the definition of doxing.
A simple internet search reveals the following definitions:
Wikipedia: âDoxing or doxxing is the act of publicly providing personally identifiable information about an individual or organization, usually via the Internet. . . . Doxing may be carried out for reasons such as online shaming, extortion, and vigilante aid to law enforcementâ
Urban Dictionary: âUsing private information gleaned from the internet to attack someone with whom you disagree, often by publishing their personal info, opening them to abuse and possibly, danger.â
What you provide is the definition of the much narrower activity of deanonymization. I agree that the posterâs behavior is not deanonymization. I never indicated otherwise.
Deanonymization is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for doxing. It is possible to dox someone even if they maintain no anonymous identities (e.g., by publishing non-public information that does not pertain to an anonymous identity for the purposes of harassment). It is also possible to reveal a personâs anonymous identity without doxing them if the reveal involves neither ill intent nor ill effects.
Why the posterâs behavior is doxing
Doxing has two important components: (1) revealing private information; (2) with ill-intent. Below I argue that the posterâs behavior meets both of these standards.
The information was private
In the EA Forum comment where the doxing occurred, the poster says the following (emphasis mine):
The term âwell-knownâ indicates that the information is not on their LinkedIn profiles, but is known to the poster. Thus, they relied on non-public information to associate the people with the organizations.
However, even if the poster had used only information from LinkedIn profiles and not their own knowledge, this would still constitute a reveal of private information because âprivate informationâ is context-dependent. Almost all canonical cases of doxing involve taking information that is findable on the public internet (albeit with difficulty) and then revealing that information in an adversarial context.
Consider, for example, the high-profile case of the doxing of Scott Alexander. Scott Alexanderâs real name was not private in the sense of ânot findable on the public internet.â Indeed, it could be revealed with a little bit of dedicated Googling. It was also widely known inside the EA and Rationality community. The Timesâ threat to publish his real name was nevertheless a threat to dox him because it was not well-known to the readership of The Times.
Who was employed at Leverage and Paradigm was not well-known to the members of the EA community. Most of those who worked at Leverage and Paradigm had little interaction with the EA community. Thus, the information revealed was private in the relevant sense.
The poster acted with ill-intent
There are several ways to see that the poster acted with ill intent.
(1) The social context of this post is that there was a deterioration of the relationship between the Effective Altruism and Leverage Research communities. This is easy to see by reviewing the comments on the âBasic Factsâ post, which are substantially negative. While one might dispute that the negativity is fair, accurate, or deserved, it was not considered so by members of Leverage or Paradigm staff. Thus, the EA Forum is an adversarial context from the perspective of Leverage and Paradigm employees.
(2) A review of the posting history of the anonymoose and throwaway accounts indicates that their primary goal was to spread negative information about Leverage and Paradigm.
(3) The context in which the people are doxed is in response to the following âquestion:â âTo what extent is Paradigm Academy a front organization for, or a covert rebrand of Leverage Research?â
This is, of course, a quite blatant attempt to insulate nefariousness where none is warranted. There was never any attempt to conceal the relationship between Leverage and Paradigm by the staff of either organization. No information to indicate otherwise is ever presented by the poster.
(4) There is simply no reason to include the peopleâs names except for the purposes of doxing. The point of the comment is that there is a heavy association between people that worked at Paradigm and those that worked at Leverage. There is no reason that specific names need to be included to make this point.
(5) The post violated the letter and spirit of Cathleenâs request.
On this point, Ben indicates the following:
However, the full request by Cathleen is as follows (emphasis mine):
As there is some confusion on this point, it is important to be clear. The central complaint in the Twitter thread is that *5 days* after Cathleenâs post, the poster edited their comment to add the names of Leverage and Paradigm employees back to the comment, including Cathleenâs last name. This violates Cathleenâs request.
Ben is correct that the comment originally occurred substantially before Cathleenâs post. But this is immaterial. The point is that the poster re-added the names after the request had been made.
Norms that allow these posts would also allow more serious abuses
A further issue with this understanding of EA norms is that it would allow more serious abuses on the EA Forum. If this is not clear, I can provide some examples.
If you list your organizational affiliation on LinkedIn (and if you are indeed correct that Paradigm Academy was not trying to be a cover for Leverage Research that shielded it from public scrutiny), then I donât think you get to complain when someone quickly googles you and finds your LinkedIn profile.
Like, if Scott Alexander had listed his real name on his about page, or on LinkedIn, connected to his pseudonym, then yeah, I would have also had very little sympathy for the objections to the New York Times. There clearly are degrees of what kind of connections you can make here, and searching an organization on LinkedIn really does not cross any obvious line here.
Maybe you are objecting to drawing a connection between Leverage Research and Paradigm Academy, but you are also saying that nobody was saying that Paradigm Academy was intentionally trying to not appear to be part of what was broadly known as âLeverageâ, so I donât understand how you can make both of these arguments at the same time.
First, as I noted in my response to Ben, some of the information included in the doxing was from the posterâs personal knowledge and not from the peopleâs LinkedIn profiles. Thus, you canât defend the doxing by saying that the information was publicly available. It simply wasnât.
Second, I am not complaining about someone quickly googling anyone and finding their LinkedIn profile. I am complaining about making it easier to harass people by posting a central repository of information about those people on a forum frequented by people with a history of harassing them.
It is certainly the case that former Leveragers took the release of their names on the EA forum as an attempt to invite harassment by members of the EA community. We were contacted by former Leveragers to see if there was anything we could do to get the names removed for this very reason.
I suspect the actual crux of the discussion here is that most EAs are unaware of the history of poor and bizarre behavior towards Leverage/âParadigm by members of the EA community. To help with the knowledge gap, Iâm considering writing a Twitter thread that will share some of the most egregious examples.
Kerry, what are you getting at? What do you think was the harm or the intended harm of Ryanâs posts?
At this point, the moderators are trying to focus on any practical steps we should take. Given that the names in question are encoded, and no one currently listed in the comment has reached out to us, we do not plan to take further action. Anyone who feels that private or incorrect information about themselves is posted on the Forum is always free to contact us.
Hi Ben,
Could you explain whatâs not practical about these simple steps that you could take:
1) Create an EA Forum policy against sockpuppeting, and apply it retroactively to this case. This might naturally result in deleting the offending posts or adding a notification indicating they are sockpuppets.
2) Remove the encoded names and replace them with numbers per the edit your team made originally.
3) Change the word âdoxingâ to âdeanonymizingâ in the following sentence from the Guide to Norms (since the behavior you intend to prohibit is not doxing):
[Disclaimer, I have very little context on this & might miss something obvious and important]
AFAICT the disagreement between Kerry and Ben stems from interpreting the second part of Cathleenâs ask differently. There seem to be two ways of reading the second part:
1. Asking people to refrain from naming others who are not already tied into this in general.
2. Asking people to refrain from naming others who are not already tied into this in discussions of her post.
To me, it seems pretty clear that she means the latter, given the structure of the two sentences. If she was aiming for the first interpretation, I think she should have used a qualifier like âin generalâ in the second sentence. In the current formulation, the âAndâ at the beginning of the sentence connects the first ask/âsentence very clearly to the second.
I guess this can be up for debate, and one could interpret it differently, but I would certainly not fault anyone for going with interpretation 2.[1]
If we assume that 2 is the correct reading, Kerryâs claim (cited above) does not seem relevant anymore /â Benâs original remark (cited below) seems correct. The timeline of edits doesnât change things. Benâs original remark (emphasis mine):
Even if she meant interpretation 1, it is unclear to me that this would be a request that I would endorse other people enforcing. Her request in interpretation 2 seems reasonable, in part because it seems like an attempt to avoid people using her post in a way she doesnât endorse. A general âdonât associate others with this organisationâ would be a much bigger ask. I would not endorse other organisations asking the public not to connect its employees to them (e.g. imagine a GiveWell employee making the generic ask not to name other employees/âcollaborators in posts about GiveWell), and the Forum team enforcing that.
I disagree with that interpretation especially given the context of Cathleenâs post. It includes lengthy discussions of poor and bizarre behavior by members of the EA community toward Leverage/âParadigm staff.
I think reading Cathleenâs post and then re-adding her name is either an intentional violation of her wishes or, at a minimum, shows a reckless disregard for her request for privacy.
In any case, I donât think this issue is central. The original comment already was doxing given the context, which includes the âquestionâ to which it was a reply, the posterâs overall pattern of behavior, and the history of very poor behavior towards Leverage/âParadigm staff by members of the EA community. The posterâs behavior after reading Cathleenâs request for privacy simply makes their intention clearer.
In case itâs helpful and youâve not read them, I think that the two main pieces of context that would be helpful are Cathleenâs original post and the Twitter thread of Kerry Vaughanâs that Ben West is referring to.
Cathleen has also now commented above which I think clarifies how her request was meant to be taken. Hereâs a quote (as context, sheâs formatted her comment to be an idea for how CEA might have responded instead):
Hi Ben,
Another question I wanted to ask is whether the EA Forum has rules against creating sock puppet accounts. This is defined as follows:
Wikipedia: âOnline, it came to be used to refer to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.â
Urban dictionary: âA false identity adopted by trolls and other malcontents to support their own postings.â
I ask because it appears to me that the poster acted deceptively in managing their multiple anonymous accounts by (1) using a second anonymous account to reply to their first anonymous account; (2) promoting the actions of their anonymous account from their public account without disclosing that they were behind the anonymous account.
Most forums Iâve been a part of have rules against sockpuppeting, but reviewing the EA Forum rules and guidelines, I did not see anything about that.
Note that the two anonymous accounts are spaced a year apart; seems likely that Ryan lost the password to the 1st.
The obvious thing to do in that case is to disclose this in a comment somewhere.
Also, this defense doesnât work for his efforts to promote his own anonymous posts from his public account.