Just want to register some disagreement here about the name change, to others in this thread and Will (not just you Gemma!). In rough order of decreasing importance:
I really donât like the name MoreGood. Itâs a direct callback to LessWrong. I donât want to have to endorse LW to endorse EAF, or EA more generally, or the causes we care about, and this name change would signal that. Yes, thereâs some shared intellectual history, but I donât think LW-rationalism is inherent to or necessary for EA.
For people new to/âinterested in EA, theyâll probably search for âEAâ or âEffective Altruismâ. They wouldnât know the rebrand or name change unless there was a way to preserve it for SEO.
I think EA Forum is fine, and it is the major place for EA discussion online at the moment. I donât think itâs that unrepresentative of EA?
Any other online forum will also be skewed towards those online or âextremely onlineâ. I think EA Twitter is much worse for this than the Forum.
In the spirit of do-ocracy, thereâs no reason that other people canât set up an alternative forum with a different focus/âset of norms, though it will probably suffer from the network effects that make it difficult to challenge social media incumbents.
I do accept it was just a small draft suggestion though.
I really donât like the name MoreGood. Itâs a direct callback to LessWrong. I donât want to have to endorse LW to endorse EAF, or EA more generally, or the causes we care about, and this name change would signal that. Yes, thereâs some shared intellectual history, but I donât think LW-rationalism is inherent to or necessary for EA.
I donât think it would signal this to many people.
For people new to/âinterested in EA, theyâll probably search for âEAâ or âEffective Altruismâ. They wouldnât know the rebrand or name change unless there was a way to preserve it for SEO.
To me this is a feature, not a bug. I personally think having a slightly higher barrier to entry (you have to be engaged enough to have found the forum via other means than the first page of Google results) would do this forum good overall.
I think EA Forum is fine, and it is the major place for EA discussion online at the moment. I donât think itâs that representative of EA?
I think having a very descriptive name is probably not worth the increase in times this forum gets quoted with more apparent authority than it actually has. [Edit: This is quite theoretical. These are the only actual examples I can think of right now and theyâre basically fine.]
Any other online forum will also be skewed towards those online or âextremely onlineâ. I think EA Twitter is much worse for this than the Forum.
Agreed. Itâs still a downside to me that a less clear name means that thereâll be more fairly engaged EAs who end up with just Twitter etc. to discuss EA online.
In the spirit of do-ocracy, thereâs no reason that other people canât set up an alternative forum with a different focus/âset of norms, though it will probably suffer from the network effects that make it difficult to challenge social media incumbents.
Sure, but the name change would make people feel more empowered to? (And Iâm undecided on whether more forums would be good or bad.)
I wonder if âthe CEA forumâ would work? Low edit distance, gives the idea that itâs related to EA while not necessarily representing all of it. Downside is that it works less well if CEA changes their name.
I like there being a centralised forum which attempts good epistemics.
Letâs compare to twitter, where incentives are towards controversy and views, I am glad that there is a nexus of EA comment on this forum.
I donât know that a decentralised set of forums would have been able to reduce the presence of community discourse, and I think that has been healthy for us as a community.
In short, I am not sure that we are well integrated enough as a community (particularly at the speed of growth) to be decentralised fully across digital environments.
Oh I didnât read Will as proposing multiple forums (although what he says is compatible with that proposal).
I thought he was saying that the name should better reflect how representative the forum is of EA thought at large. (The âdecentralisationâ aspect being moving from the impression of âThis forum is the main hub of all EA thoughtâ to âThis forum is the main hub of Extremely Online EA thoughtâ.)
I think the intention wasnât âhave lots of forums where EA topics are discussedâ, so much as âdonât make it sound like the (in practice, one) forum is the only one that can beâ.
Iâd also be concerned that âMoreGoodâ could evoke âMoreRightâ in addition to âLessWrongâ. While LW association could go either way, MR association (and neoreaction in general) Iâd like us to stay far away from!
The forum naming conversation feels like an example of something thatâs been coming up a lot that I donât have a crisp way of talking about, which is the difference between âthis is an EA thingâ as a speech act and âthis is an EA thingâ as a description. Iâm supportive of orgs and projects not branding themselves EA because they donât want to or want to scope out a different part of the world of possible projects or donât identify as EA. But Iâm also worried about being descriptively deceptive (even unintentionally), by saying âoh, this website isnât really an EA thing, itâs just a forum where a lot of EAs hang out.â That feels like it confuses and potentially deceives in a way I donât like. Donât know how to thread this needle, seems hard!
I think MoreGood would be a great rebrand for the forum!
Just want to register some disagreement here about the name change, to others in this thread and Will (not just you Gemma!). In rough order of decreasing importance:
I really donât like the name MoreGood. Itâs a direct callback to LessWrong. I donât want to have to endorse LW to endorse EAF, or EA more generally, or the causes we care about, and this name change would signal that. Yes, thereâs some shared intellectual history, but I donât think LW-rationalism is inherent to or necessary for EA.
For people new to/âinterested in EA, theyâll probably search for âEAâ or âEffective Altruismâ. They wouldnât know the rebrand or name change unless there was a way to preserve it for SEO.
I think EA Forum is fine, and it is the major place for EA discussion online at the moment. I donât think itâs that unrepresentative of EA?
Any other online forum will also be skewed towards those online or âextremely onlineâ. I think EA Twitter is much worse for this than the Forum.
In the spirit of do-ocracy, thereâs no reason that other people canât set up an alternative forum with a different focus/âset of norms, though it will probably suffer from the network effects that make it difficult to challenge social media incumbents.
I do accept it was just a small draft suggestion though.
Some thoughts from me (as a big fan of MoreGood):
I donât think it would signal this to many people.
To me this is a feature, not a bug. I personally think having a slightly higher barrier to entry (you have to be engaged enough to have found the forum via other means than the first page of Google results) would do this forum good overall.
I think having a very descriptive name is probably not worth the increase in times this forum gets quoted with more apparent authority than it actually has. [Edit: This is quite theoretical. These are the only actual examples I can think of right now and theyâre basically fine.]
Agreed. Itâs still a downside to me that a less clear name means that thereâll be more fairly engaged EAs who end up with just Twitter etc. to discuss EA online.
Sure, but the name change would make people feel more empowered to? (And Iâm undecided on whether more forums would be good or bad.)
I wonder if âthe CEA forumâ would work? Low edit distance, gives the idea that itâs related to EA while not necessarily representing all of it. Downside is that it works less well if CEA changes their name.
I like there being a centralised forum which attempts good epistemics.
Letâs compare to twitter, where incentives are towards controversy and views, I am glad that there is a nexus of EA comment on this forum.
I donât know that a decentralised set of forums would have been able to reduce the presence of community discourse, and I think that has been healthy for us as a community.
In short, I am not sure that we are well integrated enough as a community (particularly at the speed of growth) to be decentralised fully across digital environments.
Good name though
Oh I didnât read Will as proposing multiple forums (although what he says is compatible with that proposal).
I thought he was saying that the name should better reflect how representative the forum is of EA thought at large. (The âdecentralisationâ aspect being moving from the impression of âThis forum is the main hub of all EA thoughtâ to âThis forum is the main hub of Extremely Online EA thoughtâ.)
I mean, I think it would have the effect of endorsing that, which I disprefer.
Though you make a good point about extremely onlineness.
I think the intention wasnât âhave lots of forums where EA topics are discussedâ, so much as âdonât make it sound like the (in practice, one) forum is the only one that can beâ.
I canât help but notice that MoreRight is the inverse of LessWrong, even though I like MoreGood far way better than MoreRight. đ
FYI to LW old-timers, âMoreRightâ evokes the name of a neo-reactionary blog that grew out of the LW community. But I donât think itâs a thing anymore?
Iâd also be concerned that âMoreGoodâ could evoke âMoreRightâ in addition to âLessWrongâ. While LW association could go either way, MR association (and neoreaction in general) Iâd like us to stay far away from!
Wow, what a curious piece of LessWrong history. Thanks for sharing!
The forum naming conversation feels like an example of something thatâs been coming up a lot that I donât have a crisp way of talking about, which is the difference between âthis is an EA thingâ as a speech act and âthis is an EA thingâ as a description. Iâm supportive of orgs and projects not branding themselves EA because they donât want to or want to scope out a different part of the world of possible projects or donât identify as EA. But Iâm also worried about being descriptively deceptive (even unintentionally), by saying âoh, this website isnât really an EA thing, itâs just a forum where a lot of EAs hang out.â That feels like it confuses and potentially deceives in a way I donât like. Donât know how to thread this needle, seems hard!
This is honestly the best idea Iâve heard in a long time!