I’ve honestly been pretty surprised there has not been more public EA discussion post-FTX of adopting a number of Cremer’s proposed institutional reforms, many of which seem to me obviously worth doing … Also, insofar as she’d be willing (and some form of significant compensation is clearly merited), integrally engaging Cremer in whatever post-FTX EA institutional reform process emerges would be both directly helpful and a public show of good faith efforts at rectification.
I think it’s fine for a comment to engage with just a part of the original post. Also, if a posts advocates for giving someone some substantial power, it seems fair to comment on media presence of the person.
Have you seen any actual in detail analysis how would the proposal influenced FTX? I did not. I’m sceptical of the helpfulness—for example, with whistleblower protections... - Many EA orgs have whistleblower protection. Empirically, it seems it had zero impact on FTX, and the damage to the orgs seems independent of this. - There are already laws and incentives for reporting wire fraud. If there was someone in the know from within FTX considering whistleblowing, if I understand SEC and CFTC comments, they would have been eligible for both protection and bounty in millions of dollars- and possibly avoided other bad things happening them, such as going to jail. Why would some EA bounty create stronger incentive? - My impression is the original whistleblowing protection proposal was implicitly directed toward “EA charities”, not “companies of EA funders”.
But I think the amount of flack she’s taken for this has been disproportionate and sends the wrong signal to others about dissenting.
Can you link to something specific? I haven’t found any specific critical post or comment mentioning her on the forum since Nov.
In contrast, after a Google News search, I think the opposite is closer to reality: media coverage of Zoe’s criticism is uncritically positive, and who is taking flack is MacAskill. While I’m sometimes critical of Will, the narrative that he is at fault for not implementing Zoe’s proposals seems completely unfair to me.
I was reacting mostly to this part of the post
I think it’s fine for a comment to engage with just a part of the original post. Also, if a posts advocates for giving someone some substantial power, it seems fair to comment on media presence of the person.
Overall, to me, it seem you advocate for double-standard / selective demand for rigour.
Post-FTX discussion of Zoe’s proposals seems mostly on the level ‘Implement Carla Zoe Cremer’s Recommendations’ or ‘very annoyed this all had to happen before a rethink, given that 10 months earlier, I sat in his office proposing whistleblower protections, transparency over funding sources, bottom-up control over risky donations’ or similar high level supportive comments, never going into details of the proposals, and without any realistic analysis of what would have happened. I expressed the opposite sentiment, clearly marking it as my belief.
Have you seen any actual in detail analysis how would the proposal influenced FTX? I did not. I’m sceptical of the helpfulness—for example, with whistleblower protections...
- Many EA orgs have whistleblower protection. Empirically, it seems it had zero impact on FTX, and the damage to the orgs seems independent of this.
- There are already laws and incentives for reporting wire fraud. If there was someone in the know from within FTX considering whistleblowing, if I understand SEC and CFTC comments, they would have been eligible for both protection and bounty in millions of dollars- and possibly avoided other bad things happening them, such as going to jail. Why would some EA bounty create stronger incentive?
- My impression is the original whistleblowing protection proposal was implicitly directed toward “EA charities”, not “companies of EA funders”.
Can you link to something specific? I haven’t found any specific critical post or comment mentioning her on the forum since Nov.
In contrast, after a Google News search, I think the opposite is closer to reality: media coverage of Zoe’s criticism is uncritically positive, and who is taking flack is MacAskill. While I’m sometimes critical of Will, the narrative that he is at fault for not implementing Zoe’s proposals seems completely unfair to me.