If what you describe is actually what she told you, how dare you use it for your own gain here?
to imply something like “if the alleged victim shared private and very personal information, you should not publish it.” This still makes most sense to me as a literal reading.
(I would agree that “don’t publish plausibly false allegation [that you don’t see reason to litigate]” feels like a stronger position.)
to imply something like “if the alleged victim shared private and very personal information, you should not publish it.” This still makes most sense to me as a literal reading.
If that’s the case, then yeah, she gave permission and was happy for me to share it, as long as it was anonymized. She signed off on this post.
Sorry that bad phrasing on my part I meant: Kirsten might have been saying “don’t speculate that it’s false when doing so will badly harm the accuser if it’s actually true”. I didn’t mean Kirsten might have been saying “don’t spread possibly false accusations.”
Yes, that’s what I mean. If a friend of mine confided in me about something really bad that had happened to her, I wouldn’t want to publish it 2⁄3 of the way down a post about my own drama, even if she said it was okay—and especially wouldn’t then tell people not to believe her. But obviously I wasn’t sitting in on the conversation and there might be important context I’m missing. It just seems really wrong to me.
Ah, gotcha. In that case, I disagree. I think if somebody is accused of something, it is OK and good to debate whether a) the thing happened and b) whether the thing is bad.
This seems crucial for ethics and epistemics. Imagine the alternative. If somebody accuses somebody of something, people are not allowed to debate whether it happened or if it’s bad. This would lead to all accusations being treated as true by default and there would be no way to determine whether it was true or bad. False accusations would be a win-button for anybody.
And I think the main point I was making was that you shouldn’t believe or not believe the accusation based on what I wrote because the methods I used were bad (e.g. one sided, loaded phrasing, no disconfirming evidence, etc) which I stand by. If she had just told me that information in that way, I wouldn’t update a lot. I would ask Ben for his perspective and get more evidence before I came down too harshly on him.
I have just had too many times where somebody told me this terrible thing happened to them, but when I heard the other side, it almost always turns out to be more nuanced than that. If you only hear one side of a fight, you have very little information about what actually happened.
I think the allegations are true and that in that particular case, what Ben did was unethical. I think that ~50% of EAs would disagree with me and the woman though. I also think that the woman is happy (for the most part) with the actions being taken to correct the behavior.
Yes, I meant some combination of this + this was not a good place to publish that allegation, which again imo harms the accuser if it’s true. No worries at all Joel!
I took
to imply something like “if the alleged victim shared private and very personal information, you should not publish it.” This still makes most sense to me as a literal reading.
(I would agree that “don’t publish plausibly false allegation [that you don’t see reason to litigate]” feels like a stronger position.)
If that’s the case, then yeah, she gave permission and was happy for me to share it, as long as it was anonymized. She signed off on this post.
Can you just confirm that it’s something someone else told you, and not referring to yourself in third person?
Sorry that bad phrasing on my part I meant: Kirsten might have been saying “don’t speculate that it’s false when doing so will badly harm the accuser if it’s actually true”. I didn’t mean Kirsten might have been saying “don’t spread possibly false accusations.”
Yes, that’s what I mean. If a friend of mine confided in me about something really bad that had happened to her, I wouldn’t want to publish it 2⁄3 of the way down a post about my own drama, even if she said it was okay—and especially wouldn’t then tell people not to believe her. But obviously I wasn’t sitting in on the conversation and there might be important context I’m missing. It just seems really wrong to me.
Does it matter that she wanted me to share this? Are you going to say that she shouldn’t be allowed to do it because you wouldn’t want to do it?
Ah, gotcha. In that case, I disagree. I think if somebody is accused of something, it is OK and good to debate whether a) the thing happened and b) whether the thing is bad.
This seems crucial for ethics and epistemics. Imagine the alternative. If somebody accuses somebody of something, people are not allowed to debate whether it happened or if it’s bad. This would lead to all accusations being treated as true by default and there would be no way to determine whether it was true or bad. False accusations would be a win-button for anybody.
And I think the main point I was making was that you shouldn’t believe or not believe the accusation based on what I wrote because the methods I used were bad (e.g. one sided, loaded phrasing, no disconfirming evidence, etc) which I stand by. If she had just told me that information in that way, I wouldn’t update a lot. I would ask Ben for his perspective and get more evidence before I came down too harshly on him.
I have just had too many times where somebody told me this terrible thing happened to them, but when I heard the other side, it almost always turns out to be more nuanced than that. If you only hear one side of a fight, you have very little information about what actually happened.
Just to clarify do you think the person sharing the allegation is a fantasist or not? I’ve lost track
I think the allegations are true and that in that particular case, what Ben did was unethical. I think that ~50% of EAs would disagree with me and the woman though. I also think that the woman is happy (for the most part) with the actions being taken to correct the behavior.
Ah! Thank you. That makes most sense to me both as a literal reading and as a position. Sorry Kirsten if I misread.
Yes, I meant some combination of this + this was not a good place to publish that allegation, which again imo harms the accuser if it’s true. No worries at all Joel!