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 don’t like the name MoreGood. It’s a direct callback to LessWrong. I don’t 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, there’s some shared intellectual history, but I don’t think LW-rationalism is inherent to or necessary for EA.
For people new to/interested in EA, they’ll probably search for “EA” or “Effective Altruism”. They wouldn’t 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 don’t think it’s that unrepresentative of EA?
Any other online forum will also be skewed towards those online or ‘extremely online’. I think EA Twitter is much worse for this than the Forum.
In the spirit of do-ocracy, there’s no reason that other people can’t set up an alternative forum with a different focus/set 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 don’t like the name MoreGood. It’s a direct callback to LessWrong. I don’t 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, there’s some shared intellectual history, but I don’t think LW-rationalism is inherent to or necessary for EA.
I don’t think it would signal this to many people.
For people new to/interested in EA, they’ll probably search for “EA” or “Effective Altruism”. They wouldn’t 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 don’t think it’s 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 they’re basically fine.]
Any other online forum will also be skewed towards those online or ‘extremely online’. I think EA Twitter is much worse for this than the Forum.
Agreed. It’s still a downside to me that a less clear name means that there’ll be more fairly engaged EAs who end up with just Twitter etc. to discuss EA online.
In the spirit of do-ocracy, there’s no reason that other people can’t set up an alternative forum with a different focus/set 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 I’m undecided on whether more forums would be good or bad.)
I wonder if “the CEA forum” would work? Low edit distance, gives the idea that it’s 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.
Let’s 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 don’t 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 didn’t 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 ‘decentralisation’ aspect being moving from the impression of ‘This forum is the main hub of all EA thought’ to ‘This forum is the main hub of Extremely Online EA thought’.)
I think the intention wasn’t “have lots of forums where EA topics are discussed”, so much as “don’t make it sound like the (in practice, one) forum is the only one that can be”.
I’d also be concerned that “MoreGood” could evoke “MoreRight” in addition to “LessWrong”. While LW association could go either way, MR association (and neoreaction in general) I’d like us to stay far away from!
The forum naming conversation feels like an example of something that’s been coming up a lot that I don’t have a crisp way of talking about, which is the difference between “this is an EA thing” as a speech act and “this is an EA thing” as a description. I’m supportive of orgs and projects not branding themselves EA because they don’t want to or want to scope out a different part of the world of possible projects or don’t identify as EA. But I’m also worried about being descriptively deceptive (even unintentionally), by saying “oh, this website isn’t really an EA thing, it’s just a forum where a lot of EAs hang out.” That feels like it confuses and potentially deceives in a way I don’t like. Don’t 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 don’t like the name MoreGood. It’s a direct callback to LessWrong. I don’t 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, there’s some shared intellectual history, but I don’t think LW-rationalism is inherent to or necessary for EA.
For people new to/interested in EA, they’ll probably search for “EA” or “Effective Altruism”. They wouldn’t 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 don’t think it’s that unrepresentative of EA?
Any other online forum will also be skewed towards those online or ‘extremely online’. I think EA Twitter is much worse for this than the Forum.
In the spirit of do-ocracy, there’s no reason that other people can’t set up an alternative forum with a different focus/set 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 don’t 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 they’re basically fine.]
Agreed. It’s still a downside to me that a less clear name means that there’ll 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 I’m undecided on whether more forums would be good or bad.)
I wonder if “the CEA forum” would work? Low edit distance, gives the idea that it’s 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.
Let’s 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 don’t 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 didn’t 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 ‘decentralisation’ aspect being moving from the impression of ‘This forum is the main hub of all EA thought’ to ‘This forum is the main hub of Extremely Online EA thought’.)
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 wasn’t “have lots of forums where EA topics are discussed”, so much as “don’t make it sound like the (in practice, one) forum is the only one that can be”.
I can’t help but notice that MoreRight is the inverse of LessWrong, even though I like MoreGood far way better than MoreRight. 😂
FYI to LW old-timers, “MoreRight” evokes the name of a neo-reactionary blog that grew out of the LW community. But I don’t think it’s a thing anymore?
I’d also be concerned that “MoreGood” could evoke “MoreRight” in addition to “LessWrong”. While LW association could go either way, MR association (and neoreaction in general) I’d 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 that’s been coming up a lot that I don’t have a crisp way of talking about, which is the difference between “this is an EA thing” as a speech act and “this is an EA thing” as a description. I’m supportive of orgs and projects not branding themselves EA because they don’t want to or want to scope out a different part of the world of possible projects or don’t identify as EA. But I’m also worried about being descriptively deceptive (even unintentionally), by saying “oh, this website isn’t really an EA thing, it’s just a forum where a lot of EAs hang out.” That feels like it confuses and potentially deceives in a way I don’t like. Don’t know how to thread this needle, seems hard!
This is honestly the best idea I’ve heard in a long time!