Thanks for sharing the last link, which I think provides useful context (that Open Philanthropy’s funder has a history of donating to partisan political campaigns).
The very last line of the Vox interview is the only one I saw which suggests concrete action a person could take to reduce the chances of an electoral crisis (I assume that trying to get relevant laws changed within five months would be really hard):
The only real way to avoid this is to make sure we don’t enter into this scenario, and the best way to do that is to ensure that he loses decisively in November. That’s the best guarantee. That’s the best way that we can secure the future of a healthy constitutional democracy.
Given these points, though, the upshot of this post is effectively an argument that supporting Biden’s campaign should be thought of as an EA cause area, because even though it’s very hard to tell what impact political donations have, an unclear election result runs the risk of triggering a civil war, which is bad enough that even hard-to-quantify forms of risk reduction are very valuable here? With some bonus value because Biden donations mean a candidate with mostly better policy ideas is more likely to win (though the article doesn’t really go into policy differences)?
Does that seem like the right takeaway to you? Did you mean to make a different point about the value of changing electoral laws?
(I realize that the above is me making a lot of assumptions, but that’s another reason why it’s helpful to summarize what you found valuable/actionable in a given crosspost; it saves readers from having to work through all of the implications themselves.)
Thanks for sharing the last link, which I think provides useful context (that Open Philanthropy’s funder has a history of donating to partisan political campaigns).
Why is this context useful? It feels like this the relevance of this post should not be particularly tied to Dustin and Cari’s donation choices.
the upshot of this post is effectively an argument that supporting Biden’s campaign should be thought of as an EA cause area
Is “X should be thought of as an EA cause area” distinct from “X would be good”? More generally, I’d like the forum to be a place where we can share important ideas without needing to include calls to action.
On the other hand, I also endorse holding political posts to a more stringent standard, so that we don’t all get sucked in.
I should also mention that a post like this doesn’t need to have expected-value calculations attached, or anything in that level of detail; it’s just good to have a couple of sentences along the lines of “here’s why I posted this, and why I think it demonstrates a chance to make an effective donation // take other effective actions,” even if no math is involved.
(This kind of explanation seems more important the further removed a post is from “standard” EA content. When I crossposted Open Phil’s 2019 year-in-review post, I didn’t include a summary, because the material seemed to have very clear relevance for people who want to keep up with the EA community.)
I liked that post when it came out, but I had forgotten about it in the ensuing year-plus. Maybe you could link to this post when you make situational-awareness crossposts?
Thanks for sharing the last link, which I think provides useful context (that Open Philanthropy’s funder has a history of donating to partisan political campaigns).
The very last line of the Vox interview is the only one I saw which suggests concrete action a person could take to reduce the chances of an electoral crisis (I assume that trying to get relevant laws changed within five months would be really hard):
Given these points, though, the upshot of this post is effectively an argument that supporting Biden’s campaign should be thought of as an EA cause area, because even though it’s very hard to tell what impact political donations have, an unclear election result runs the risk of triggering a civil war, which is bad enough that even hard-to-quantify forms of risk reduction are very valuable here? With some bonus value because Biden donations mean a candidate with mostly better policy ideas is more likely to win (though the article doesn’t really go into policy differences)?
Does that seem like the right takeaway to you? Did you mean to make a different point about the value of changing electoral laws?
(I realize that the above is me making a lot of assumptions, but that’s another reason why it’s helpful to summarize what you found valuable/actionable in a given crosspost; it saves readers from having to work through all of the implications themselves.)
Why is this context useful? It feels like this the relevance of this post should not be particularly tied to Dustin and Cari’s donation choices.
Is “X should be thought of as an EA cause area” distinct from “X would be good”? More generally, I’d like the forum to be a place where we can share important ideas without needing to include calls to action.
On the other hand, I also endorse holding political posts to a more stringent standard, so that we don’t all get sucked in.
I should also mention that a post like this doesn’t need to have expected-value calculations attached, or anything in that level of detail; it’s just good to have a couple of sentences along the lines of “here’s why I posted this, and why I think it demonstrates a chance to make an effective donation // take other effective actions,” even if no math is involved.
(This kind of explanation seems more important the further removed a post is from “standard” EA content. When I crossposted Open Phil’s 2019 year-in-review post, I didn’t include a summary, because the material seemed to have very clear relevance for people who want to keep up with the EA community.)
I usually do link posts to improve the community’s situational awareness.
This is upstream of advocating for specific actions, though it’s definitely part of that causal chain.
I liked that post when it came out, but I had forgotten about it in the ensuing year-plus. Maybe you could link to this post when you make situational-awareness crossposts?