Well if everyone who receives it shares it with their friends (as instructed), and those friends share it with their friends (as instructed), and those friends… it will become a fully public document before long.
I do not think that bans on a person attending EA events or conferences necessarily should be interpreted as proof that that person was attending them before the ban.
I would expect that in some cases, a person reports “hey, this person acted violently towards me; I have no idea whether they might apply to attend this event, but I want the community health team to know about this so that, should they ever apply, they would be refused.”
Furthermore, lots of people might attend a professional conference who don’t identify with an associated movement or community, and CEA hosts lots of professional events many of which specifically try to attract non-EAs with relevant expertise; it’s not only environmentalists who attend climate change conferences, or only animal rights activists who attend events on the future of agriculture and food! It would be bizarre to me to claim it was proof someone was an environmentalist that they’d been banned from a conference on climate change.
More generally, it seems like a situation where there are bad actors who have been systematically banned from all EA events but who are still harming people at other, non-EA events is very different (in terms of what women should do for our safety) than a situation where bad actors are attending EA events, so I think it’s important for our safety to be clear about which of those situations is what’s happening.
writing “please do not post this in a public place” on the document seems like a good way to idiotproof this sort of thing? although I suppose it makes it slightly harder to tell whether it has been compromised
Why was this comment downvoted?
The document literally says:
Being able to see the document is useful to people because it proves that the perpetrator was not actually an EA.
I interpret that as a request to share privately within friend groups, not publicly in a community like this?
Well if everyone who receives it shares it with their friends (as instructed), and those friends share it with their friends (as instructed), and those friends… it will become a fully public document before long.
I do not think that bans on a person attending EA events or conferences necessarily should be interpreted as proof that that person was attending them before the ban.
I would expect that in some cases, a person reports “hey, this person acted violently towards me; I have no idea whether they might apply to attend this event, but I want the community health team to know about this so that, should they ever apply, they would be refused.”
Furthermore, lots of people might attend a professional conference who don’t identify with an associated movement or community, and CEA hosts lots of professional events many of which specifically try to attract non-EAs with relevant expertise; it’s not only environmentalists who attend climate change conferences, or only animal rights activists who attend events on the future of agriculture and food! It would be bizarre to me to claim it was proof someone was an environmentalist that they’d been banned from a conference on climate change.
More generally, it seems like a situation where there are bad actors who have been systematically banned from all EA events but who are still harming people at other, non-EA events is very different (in terms of what women should do for our safety) than a situation where bad actors are attending EA events, so I think it’s important for our safety to be clear about which of those situations is what’s happening.
writing “please do not post this in a public place” on the document seems like a good way to idiotproof this sort of thing? although I suppose it makes it slightly harder to tell whether it has been compromised
ok as long as some as there is some story behind this, it’d be a little silly if I were the first person to point out the obvious :P