Speaking on behalf of my own personal interactions with the reporter, the described events in the article are far much milder than what I really experienced. I did not want to tell the full severity of the story because I genuinely care about the Effective Altruism movement, and though numerous individual actors behaved in a coordinated and awful way, I still see the promise in having a positive conversation about how the movement can change.
That being said, if people try the same intimidation tactics on myself and my peers again, I will probably share more of the evidence I’ve gathered over the past year to give a clearer picture on what actually happened.
I did not want to tell the full severity of the story because I genuinely care about the Effective Altruism movement, and though numerous individual actors behaved in a coordinated and awful way, I still see the promise in having a positive conversation about how the movement can change.
Can you be more specific here; were you declining to tell the full severity of the story in order to protect the reputation of the EA movement? I would prefer you didn’t do that (but by the same logic, if you did, I very much appreciate you [EDIT: saying] so!). We can have a discussion about the relative merits of reputation vs integrity (as in https://sideways-view.com/2016/11/14/integrity-for-consequentialists/ ; I don’t endorse all the reasoning in that post) but I don’t really know where to start.
Separately, I would prefer if you share more of the evidence regardless of your reasons against doing so. Please let me know if I can do anything to make you or others more comfortable doing so!
What sort of institutional safeguards would enable you to share the full extent of what occurred assuming you wanted to share and it would help your healing (beyond what you’ve already written)?
Speaking on behalf of my own personal interactions with the reporter, the described events in the article are far much milder than what I really experienced. I did not want to tell the full severity of the story because I genuinely care about the Effective Altruism movement, and though numerous individual actors behaved in a coordinated and awful way, I still see the promise in having a positive conversation about how the movement can change.
That being said, if people try the same intimidation tactics on myself and my peers again, I will probably share more of the evidence I’ve gathered over the past year to give a clearer picture on what actually happened.
Can you be more specific here; were you declining to tell the full severity of the story in order to protect the reputation of the EA movement? I would prefer you didn’t do that (but by the same logic, if you did, I very much appreciate you [EDIT: saying] so!). We can have a discussion about the relative merits of reputation vs integrity (as in https://sideways-view.com/2016/11/14/integrity-for-consequentialists/ ; I don’t endorse all the reasoning in that post) but I don’t really know where to start.
Separately, I would prefer if you share more of the evidence regardless of your reasons against doing so. Please let me know if I can do anything to make you or others more comfortable doing so!
What sort of institutional safeguards would enable you to share the full extent of what occurred assuming you wanted to share and it would help your healing (beyond what you’ve already written)?