Is the argument here that nobody should criticize effective altruism on websites that are not EA forum, because then outsiders might get a negative impression? And if so, what kind of impression would outsiders get if they knew about this proposed rule?
Upvoted for asking important clarifying questions. To answer them, the argument is not that:
External critics should post on the EA Forum. There are a lot of problems with that Devin Kalish covered well in this comment.
Those already in the EA community should only post on the EA Forum. It’d be preferable that they also post on the EA Forum, such as summarizing conversations on social media, or posting links to their personal blog posts.
The argument is:
Community members should consider posting more on the EA Forum, even if there are perceived risks to doing so.
The rationale for that can be risks just as great in community members posting exclusively off of the EA Forum in ways when inaccurate info about EA may spread in ways harder to keep track of and address.
I don’t mean for this to be a hard rule. What I’d want is for the EA Forum to serve a different function as a portal where outsiders could notice that their concerns with EA are being addressed and, when legitimate, validated in a systematic way. I expect that effort would garner more appreciation than what seems to be a mostly random and disorganized approach taken in EA. That’s was at least my thinking until this comment from Devin raises a lot of points about how such an endeavour may be too hard or not valuable enough, especially compared to alternatives time and energy could be invested in.
What I’d want is for the EA Forum to serve a different function as a portal where outsiders could notice that their concerns with EA are being addressed
The forum is public and will get more and more exposure as the movement grows in numbers, funding and access to power. And this is a great thing—it allows anyone who supports us, is against us, or is affected by our actions to get a fully transparent impression of what we do and why.
Is the argument here that nobody should criticize effective altruism on websites that are not EA forum, because then outsiders might get a negative impression? And if so, what kind of impression would outsiders get if they knew about this proposed rule?
Upvoted for asking important clarifying questions. To answer them, the argument is not that:
External critics should post on the EA Forum. There are a lot of problems with that Devin Kalish covered well in this comment.
Those already in the EA community should only post on the EA Forum. It’d be preferable that they also post on the EA Forum, such as summarizing conversations on social media, or posting links to their personal blog posts.
The argument is:
Community members should consider posting more on the EA Forum, even if there are perceived risks to doing so.
The rationale for that can be risks just as great in community members posting exclusively off of the EA Forum in ways when inaccurate info about EA may spread in ways harder to keep track of and address.
I don’t mean for this to be a hard rule. What I’d want is for the EA Forum to serve a different function as a portal where outsiders could notice that their concerns with EA are being addressed and, when legitimate, validated in a systematic way. I expect that effort would garner more appreciation than what seems to be a mostly random and disorganized approach taken in EA. That’s was at least my thinking until this comment from Devin raises a lot of points about how such an endeavour may be too hard or not valuable enough, especially compared to alternatives time and energy could be invested in.
Upvoted, especially for this:
The forum is public and will get more and more exposure as the movement grows in numbers, funding and access to power. And this is a great thing—it allows anyone who supports us, is against us, or is affected by our actions to get a fully transparent impression of what we do and why.