To be clear, my best guess is based on my experiences talking to hundreds of community builders and student group organizers over the years, is that the general sentiment amongst organizers is substantially more towards the “I don’t think we should micromanage the attendance decisions of external events” position than the forum discussion.
This kind of stuff is hard to get an objective sense off, so I am not confident here, but I think the biases in what positions people feel comfortable expressing publicly clearly go more in the direction of outrage “complaining about who attended” [1] here.
My best guess there is also a large U.S./EU difference here. My sense is the European (non-German, for some reason) EA community is substantially more leaning towards controlling access and reputation tightly here. You can also see this in the voting patterns on many of the relevant posts which wax and wane with the U.S./EU time difference.
I don’t think the crux here is whether one ought to micromanage the attendance decisions of external events. It’s more about:
“Should one give a platform to Hanania?”
“If forum users think it’s wrong to give a platform to Hanania, is it reasonable for them to express displeasure at Manifest for giving him a platform?”
“If someone points out that Hanania has said, by his own admission, horrible things and therefore probably shouldn’t be given a platform, is it reasonable to then write a long comment trying to add nuance to the discussion, instead of simply saying, ‘yeah, seems right’”
My guess is that the crux between people disagreeing is typically closer to: “is this mostly a question of managing the details of how someone else ran an event, or is this mostly a question of appropriate social signalling?”
There is an object-level disagreement about what counts as unacceptable racism here, not just a meta-disagreement about norms. One person-I assume a rationalist but I don’t know that-in the main thread didn’t understand why I was offended by something they posted in which Hanania basically implied that the Civil Rights Act caused crime.
“I think the biases in what positions people feel comfortable expressing publicly clearly go more in the direction of outrage here.”
Two comments here. First in terms of comment number on the forum I would say it’s pretty balanced. When it comes to voting (not public) I would say pro-platforming-Hananiah sentiment is more heavily upvoted in general
I also don’t think “outrage” is an accurate reflection on the sentiment of tge majority of anti-platforming comments. Most comments have seemed like sober arguments about making attendees feel comfortable, the dangers of platforming edgy people who have made comments in the past that many consider racist, or avoiding bad press rather than irrational outage… You can make good arguments against these points but I would hardly label them as outrage.
Agree with the timezone voting thing. I should start posting at EU friendly times ;).
As an observer to these discussions, a couple of comments:
I think you’re right in your characterization of most of the anti-platforming comments
However, I’d guess you’re wrong to describe most of the anti-anti-platforming comments/votes as “pro-platforming”
Rather, the more common sentiment, and the one I think is mostly attracting upvotes, seems to me to be like “who are we to tell other people who to talk to?”
I don’t know much about him, but from what I do know I think the guy sounds like a jerk and I’d be meaningfully less interested in going to events he was at; I can’t really imagine inviting him to speak at anything
But it also seems to me that it’s important to respect people’s autonomy and ability to choose differently
There’s a sad irony that this whole debate is functioning to give him a weird kind of platform
e.g. I’d otherwise never heard of him; now I have
As a matter of social game theory I think it’s usually a mistake to read someone’s writing when it’s been drawn to your attention for being controversial. This incentivizes people to be provocative in order to draw audiences.
This means that I think it’s likely correct for most people to never form strong opinions about him in the first place
And I feel uncomfortable that his critics are doing his work for him by demanding others have strong negative reactions to him, when I think it might usually be wiser for them to keep focused on other things and let him sink into obscurity
Rather, the more common sentiment, and the one I think is mostly attracting upvotes, seems to me to be like “who are we to tell other people who to talk to?”
I don’t know much about him, but from what I do know I think the guy sounds like a jerk and I’d be meaningfully less interested in going to events he was at; I can’t really imagine inviting him to speak at anything
But it also seems to me that it’s important to respect people’s autonomy and ability to choose differently
Criticizing someone’s decisions is not denying them autonomy or ability to choose.
To use a legal metaphor, one way of thinking about this is personal jurisdiction—what has Manifest done that gives the EA community a right to criticize? After all, it would be uncool to start criticizing random people on the Forum with no link to EA, and it would generally be uncool to start criticizing random EAs for their private non-EA/EA-adjacent actions.
I have two answers to that:
The first is purposeful availment. If an actor purposefully takes advantage of community resources in connection with an action, they cannot reasonably complain about their choices being the subject of community scrutiny. The Manifest organizers promoted their event on the Forum. A significant portion of Manifold’s funding has come from an EA-linked source (FTXFF) and IIRC they have sought grants from OP as well.
The second is adverse effect / distancing. It’s reasonable for members of a community that has been adversely affected by an action, or to whom the action is being imputed (or to whom it might reasonably be expected to be imputed) to criticize—especially if the criticism helps set the record straight that the community doesn’t support the action. It is not reasonable for the speakers to expect community members not mitigate the reputational harm that their actions have caused. This is why, for instance, it was appropriate for CEA to issue a statement on the Bostrom e-mail even though there was no personal availment.
I don’t think it matters if the imputation of others is reasonable. It is the experience of harm to the community that gives it standing to criticize. That community may have been involuntarily and unreasonably dragged into the controversy, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is there. In contrast, I think standing based on possible future imputation would be triggered only where some meaningful degree of imputation would be reasonable to some class of outside observers.
From my “side,” some of the comments by third parties have made the adverse effect / need to distance more acute. People are advocating scientific racism on the merits, which is not a position that the Manifest organizers actually took. While it’s important to distinguish between the organizers’ stance and that of the third-party commenters, I think it’s unavoidable that the third-party comments are raising the temperature here.
So if the Manifest organizers don’t want to give the EA community a right to criticize, they can avoid or at least limit purposeful availment, and can at least try to take steps to avoid any negative secondary effects on the EA community.
I agree there’s a big mix of disagreements, but I do think a lot of the negative comments are related to the platforming aspect, to which I feel like some of the replies (getting lots of upvotes like you say) strawman that a little by shifting the ground to “who are we to tell other people to talk to”.
For me the big issue is not allowing him to “attend” the event and talk to people (I agree we shouldn’t tell people who to talk to), but the platforming itself. He was invited to the event by the organiser, listed initially as a speaker and then eventually attended as a “special guest”. Personally I love talking to people with a wide range of views, even those I don’t like or even people that could be considered “enemies”. From my faith background Jesus spent a lot of time doing that and I try and do the same (“love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”)
I’m fairly confident this wouldn’t have blown up (at least not to this extent) if he was just a regular attendee.
Completely agree on the sad irony front amplifying the platforming, although I think both Manifest and us debating can probably share the responsibility for platforming him more. I completely agree we should not demand strong negative reactions to someone, and that doing so makes the situation worse.
(I wouldn’t have done that, and at some level I feel sad that they did it—but I think that is a bit norm violating to express publicly, and I’m trying to do it softly and only because it may help to avoid misunderstanding.)
However, I think Manifest has the right to choose who to platform just as people have the right to choose who to talk to. I do think this platforming decision is something Manifest’s natural constituents can rightfully complain about, but I think it’s kind of inappropriate for the EA forum at large to weigh in on. (Though I support people’s right to be inappropriate this way! I just would try not to do it myself and might gently advise other people to try not to.)
I feel like EA is close enough to Manifest (open Phil funding, EA organisers involved, advertising on the forum) that its fair enough for the forum to weigh in. Why do you think it’s inappropriate for the forum to weigh in? Are you trying to curtail our free speech ;) (Jokes)
I don’t really understand the argument about “the right” to speak or “the right” for manifest to platform whoever they want”. Of course they can do what they want, and it’s their org they can invite who they want. and then we can talk about it? This seems like a non-argument to me.
I’m not aware of Manifest (or even Manifold) receiving funding from Open Phil, although Manifold did receive significant funding from an EA-linked funder (FTXFF).
Totally agree that people can do whatever they want!
But: suppose there were a big online discussion about the clothing choices of a public intellectual (and while slightly quirky and not super flattering, these obviously weren’t being chosen for the sake of being provocative). Then I think I’d feel like I cared about their privacy, and that it would be kinder for people to refrain from this discussion. Not that they wouldn’t have a right to have it—but that it might ultimately be more aligned with their values not to (even if they’re totally right about the clothes).
I feel kind of similarly here. Manifest made some choices. They seem to me like they may have been mistakes, but it’s important to me that they have the right to make their own choices (whether or not those are mistakes). Some of the discourse feels like it’s an ungraceful attempt to muscle in on their autonomy—like the vibe is “you shouldn’t have had the right to invite him”, even if people don’t actually say that—and thereby more likely to create an environment where people don’t actually feel free. (Not all of the criticism has felt to me like that. I actually support a certain amount of tactfully-done criticism in this case. And I’ve upvoted a number of contributions on both “sides” of this debate, where I felt like they were adding something useful.)
(It’s more plausible that Manifest’s choices are causing indirect harm than that the intellectual’s clothing choices are, so this analogy isn’t perfect, and I’m not trying to say it’s as clear-cut as that case, and it’s possible this value could be outweighed by other values, which is why I’m in favour of some of the criticism. But I do think it’s not a “non-argument”, and I’m giving an analogy where I think it’s clearer cut in order to demonstrate that it’s at least a legitimate consideration.)
Yep I agree with all of this nice one I like the way you put it. I haven’t noticed so many posts/comment which I see as trying to “Muscle” Manifest, but there is some of that sentiment I think for sure.
When it comes to voting (not public) I would say pro-platforming-Hananiah sentiment is more heavily upvoted in general
Agree with this, which is part of why I expect a bigger skew here in terms of representation. If public contributions are balanced, and voting contributions are less balanced, then my guess is the overall bias of the discussion is towards the side that gets relatively more support when contributions are public, and relatively less support when contributions are private)
Yep I’d agree with that. I just hope the “silent” voters are engaged EAs/Rationalists and we don’t have a small (but significant) number of trolls lurking skewing the voting. I would imagine though the forum admins have this under control.
To be clear, my best guess is based on my experiences talking to hundreds of community builders and student group organizers over the years, is that the general sentiment amongst organizers is substantially more towards the “I don’t think we should micromanage the attendance decisions of external events” position than the forum discussion.
This kind of stuff is hard to get an objective sense off, so I am not confident here, but I think the biases in what positions people feel comfortable expressing publicly clearly go more in the direction of
outrage“complaining about who attended” [1] here.My best guess there is also a large U.S./EU difference here. My sense is the European (non-German, for some reason) EA community is substantially more leaning towards controlling access and reputation tightly here. You can also see this in the voting patterns on many of the relevant posts which wax and wane with the U.S./EU time difference.
(edit: “outrage” seems like a bad choice of words due to connotation, so I am replacing it with something more neutral)
I do think you need to differentiate the Bay Area from the rest of the US, or at least from the US East Coast.
I don’t think the crux here is whether one ought to micromanage the attendance decisions of external events. It’s more about:
“Should one give a platform to Hanania?”
“If forum users think it’s wrong to give a platform to Hanania, is it reasonable for them to express displeasure at Manifest for giving him a platform?”
“If someone points out that Hanania has said, by his own admission, horrible things and therefore probably shouldn’t be given a platform, is it reasonable to then write a long comment trying to add nuance to the discussion, instead of simply saying, ‘yeah, seems right’”
My guess is that the crux between people disagreeing is typically closer to: “is this mostly a question of managing the details of how someone else ran an event, or is this mostly a question of appropriate social signalling?”
There is an object-level disagreement about what counts as unacceptable racism here, not just a meta-disagreement about norms. One person-I assume a rationalist but I don’t know that-in the main thread didn’t understand why I was offended by something they posted in which Hanania basically implied that the Civil Rights Act caused crime.
I think it’s a bit tricky when we assume people who disagree with us are of the ‘opposing’ party.
“I think the biases in what positions people feel comfortable expressing publicly clearly go more in the direction of outrage here.”
Two comments here. First in terms of comment number on the forum I would say it’s pretty balanced. When it comes to voting (not public) I would say pro-platforming-Hananiah sentiment is more heavily upvoted in general
I also don’t think “outrage” is an accurate reflection on the sentiment of tge majority of anti-platforming comments. Most comments have seemed like sober arguments about making attendees feel comfortable, the dangers of platforming edgy people who have made comments in the past that many consider racist, or avoiding bad press rather than irrational outage… You can make good arguments against these points but I would hardly label them as outrage.
Agree with the timezone voting thing. I should start posting at EU friendly times ;).
As an observer to these discussions, a couple of comments:
I think you’re right in your characterization of most of the anti-platforming comments
However, I’d guess you’re wrong to describe most of the anti-anti-platforming comments/votes as “pro-platforming”
Rather, the more common sentiment, and the one I think is mostly attracting upvotes, seems to me to be like “who are we to tell other people who to talk to?”
I don’t know much about him, but from what I do know I think the guy sounds like a jerk and I’d be meaningfully less interested in going to events he was at; I can’t really imagine inviting him to speak at anything
But it also seems to me that it’s important to respect people’s autonomy and ability to choose differently
There’s a sad irony that this whole debate is functioning to give him a weird kind of platform
e.g. I’d otherwise never heard of him; now I have
As a matter of social game theory I think it’s usually a mistake to read someone’s writing when it’s been drawn to your attention for being controversial. This incentivizes people to be provocative in order to draw audiences.
This means that I think it’s likely correct for most people to never form strong opinions about him in the first place
And I feel uncomfortable that his critics are doing his work for him by demanding others have strong negative reactions to him, when I think it might usually be wiser for them to keep focused on other things and let him sink into obscurity
Criticizing someone’s decisions is not denying them autonomy or ability to choose.
To use a legal metaphor, one way of thinking about this is personal jurisdiction—what has Manifest done that gives the EA community a right to criticize? After all, it would be uncool to start criticizing random people on the Forum with no link to EA, and it would generally be uncool to start criticizing random EAs for their private non-EA/EA-adjacent actions.
I have two answers to that:
The first is purposeful availment. If an actor purposefully takes advantage of community resources in connection with an action, they cannot reasonably complain about their choices being the subject of community scrutiny. The Manifest organizers promoted their event on the Forum. A significant portion of Manifold’s funding has come from an EA-linked source (FTXFF) and IIRC they have sought grants from OP as well.
The second is adverse effect / distancing. It’s reasonable for members of a community that has been adversely affected by an action, or to whom the action is being imputed (or to whom it might reasonably be expected to be imputed) to criticize—especially if the criticism helps set the record straight that the community doesn’t support the action. It is not reasonable for the speakers to expect community members not mitigate the reputational harm that their actions have caused. This is why, for instance, it was appropriate for CEA to issue a statement on the Bostrom e-mail even though there was no personal availment.
I don’t think it matters if the imputation of others is reasonable. It is the experience of harm to the community that gives it standing to criticize. That community may have been involuntarily and unreasonably dragged into the controversy, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is there. In contrast, I think standing based on possible future imputation would be triggered only where some meaningful degree of imputation would be reasonable to some class of outside observers.
From my “side,” some of the comments by third parties have made the adverse effect / need to distance more acute. People are advocating scientific racism on the merits, which is not a position that the Manifest organizers actually took. While it’s important to distinguish between the organizers’ stance and that of the third-party commenters, I think it’s unavoidable that the third-party comments are raising the temperature here.
So if the Manifest organizers don’t want to give the EA community a right to criticize, they can avoid or at least limit purposeful availment, and can at least try to take steps to avoid any negative secondary effects on the EA community.
On the “platforming” question
I agree there’s a big mix of disagreements, but I do think a lot of the negative comments are related to the platforming aspect, to which I feel like some of the replies (getting lots of upvotes like you say) strawman that a little by shifting the ground to “who are we to tell other people to talk to”.
For me the big issue is not allowing him to “attend” the event and talk to people (I agree we shouldn’t tell people who to talk to), but the platforming itself. He was invited to the event by the organiser, listed initially as a speaker and then eventually attended as a “special guest”. Personally I love talking to people with a wide range of views, even those I don’t like or even people that could be considered “enemies”. From my faith background Jesus spent a lot of time doing that and I try and do the same (“love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”)
I’m fairly confident this wouldn’t have blown up (at least not to this extent) if he was just a regular attendee.
Completely agree on the sad irony front amplifying the platforming, although I think both Manifest and us debating can probably share the responsibility for platforming him more. I completely agree we should not demand strong negative reactions to someone, and that doing so makes the situation worse.
I agree that Manifest was platforming him.
(I wouldn’t have done that, and at some level I feel sad that they did it—but I think that is a bit norm violating to express publicly, and I’m trying to do it softly and only because it may help to avoid misunderstanding.)
However, I think Manifest has the right to choose who to platform just as people have the right to choose who to talk to. I do think this platforming decision is something Manifest’s natural constituents can rightfully complain about, but I think it’s kind of inappropriate for the EA forum at large to weigh in on. (Though I support people’s right to be inappropriate this way! I just would try not to do it myself and might gently advise other people to try not to.)
I feel like EA is close enough to Manifest (open Phil funding, EA organisers involved, advertising on the forum) that its fair enough for the forum to weigh in. Why do you think it’s inappropriate for the forum to weigh in? Are you trying to curtail our free speech ;) (Jokes)
I don’t really understand the argument about “the right” to speak or “the right” for manifest to platform whoever they want”. Of course they can do what they want, and it’s their org they can invite who they want. and then we can talk about it? This seems like a non-argument to me.
I’m not aware of Manifest (or even Manifold) receiving funding from Open Phil, although Manifold did receive significant funding from an EA-linked funder (FTXFF).
Totally agree that people can do whatever they want!
But: suppose there were a big online discussion about the clothing choices of a public intellectual (and while slightly quirky and not super flattering, these obviously weren’t being chosen for the sake of being provocative). Then I think I’d feel like I cared about their privacy, and that it would be kinder for people to refrain from this discussion. Not that they wouldn’t have a right to have it—but that it might ultimately be more aligned with their values not to (even if they’re totally right about the clothes).
I feel kind of similarly here. Manifest made some choices. They seem to me like they may have been mistakes, but it’s important to me that they have the right to make their own choices (whether or not those are mistakes). Some of the discourse feels like it’s an ungraceful attempt to muscle in on their autonomy—like the vibe is “you shouldn’t have had the right to invite him”, even if people don’t actually say that—and thereby more likely to create an environment where people don’t actually feel free. (Not all of the criticism has felt to me like that. I actually support a certain amount of tactfully-done criticism in this case. And I’ve upvoted a number of contributions on both “sides” of this debate, where I felt like they were adding something useful.)
(It’s more plausible that Manifest’s choices are causing indirect harm than that the intellectual’s clothing choices are, so this analogy isn’t perfect, and I’m not trying to say it’s as clear-cut as that case, and it’s possible this value could be outweighed by other values, which is why I’m in favour of some of the criticism. But I do think it’s not a “non-argument”, and I’m giving an analogy where I think it’s clearer cut in order to demonstrate that it’s at least a legitimate consideration.)
Yep I agree with all of this nice one I like the way you put it. I haven’t noticed so many posts/comment which I see as trying to “Muscle” Manifest, but there is some of that sentiment I think for sure.
Agree with this, which is part of why I expect a bigger skew here in terms of representation. If public contributions are balanced, and voting contributions are less balanced, then my guess is the overall bias of the discussion is towards the side that gets relatively more support when contributions are public, and relatively less support when contributions are private)
Yep I’d agree with that. I just hope the “silent” voters are engaged EAs/Rationalists and we don’t have a small (but significant) number of trolls lurking skewing the voting. I would imagine though the forum admins have this under control.
Part of the reason I have some concern about this is that the voting pattern seems quite different on this post 3 months ago… https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/mZwJkhGWyZrvc2Qez/david-mathers-s-quick-takes?commentId=AnGzk7gjzpbMsHXHi