I have mixed feelings on this one. The first two relate to distribution of responsibility and power:
I have some concerns that this kind of logic often calls, as a practical matter, for rank-and-file EAs to sacrifice their own personal career and other interests due to the consequences of actions taken by higher-status EAs. FTX is the obvious example here. That does not sit well with me.
Somewhat relatedly, problems of this sort often have two preconditions: “Jane would not want to publicly affiliate with EA to the extent it has become associated with X,” and “EA became associated with X because of the actions of certain EAs.” Cancelling either precondition is sufficient to prevent the state of the world in which Jane doesn’t publicly affiliate with EA. Although there are some circumstances in which placing the burden on Jane may be appropriate or unavoidable, I don’t think we should view Jane’s desire as the problematic precondition by default.
Two others relate to any potential implication that those who choose not to publicly affiliate are acting in an unfair/non-cooperative manner:
Although I appreciate that free-rider problem is a term of art, I would want to be very careful in emphasizing that there appear to be few free riders in 2024 EA. It’s very hard to view someone who donates 10% of their income, or who is working for far less than their private-sector salary, as a free rider.
In terms of “passively benefit[ting] from EA without openly supporting it,” it’s unclear what should count as passively benefitting. In particular, there’s at least some meaningful distance between OP and EA, and it doesn’t seem to view itself as responsible for or accountable to the community (cf. point 5 of this comment). Absent evidence that OP cares whether people self-identify as EA, I don’t think their funding would count. People were emphasizing that Manifest wasn’t an EA event, SFF “explicitly does not identify as an EA Funder,” etc. I don’t think EA gets to take credit for actors who explicitly disclaim being EA entities, or who EAs will cast as non-EA actors when they do something controversial.
As far as a path forward, many other social movements (like religions and political parties) have managed to construct sub-brands or sub-identities that allow supporters to limit identification with elements of the larger group that they find problematic. For instance, one can identify with terminology that identifies you with Major Party X but makes it clear that you think the progressive (or conservative) wing is way off the mark. I don’t sense that EA has managed to pull this off yet.
On your first points, I think there are totally fair. I feel that’s the preconditions of the prisonner’s dilemma.
Then, I see your point on free-rider and I will reflect on it. I’d add that people mentioning how EA might have influence them or how an organization might make decisions influenced by EA principles seems completely different (to me) than “being an EA” (“identifying”) and orgs “being EA orgs”. I tend to think those latter framings are not necessarily useful, especially in the context of what I’m advocating for.
I have mixed feelings on this one. The first two relate to distribution of responsibility and power:
I have some concerns that this kind of logic often calls, as a practical matter, for rank-and-file EAs to sacrifice their own personal career and other interests due to the consequences of actions taken by higher-status EAs. FTX is the obvious example here. That does not sit well with me.
Somewhat relatedly, problems of this sort often have two preconditions: “Jane would not want to publicly affiliate with EA to the extent it has become associated with X,” and “EA became associated with X because of the actions of certain EAs.” Cancelling either precondition is sufficient to prevent the state of the world in which Jane doesn’t publicly affiliate with EA. Although there are some circumstances in which placing the burden on Jane may be appropriate or unavoidable, I don’t think we should view Jane’s desire as the problematic precondition by default.
Two others relate to any potential implication that those who choose not to publicly affiliate are acting in an unfair/non-cooperative manner:
Although I appreciate that free-rider problem is a term of art, I would want to be very careful in emphasizing that there appear to be few free riders in 2024 EA. It’s very hard to view someone who donates 10% of their income, or who is working for far less than their private-sector salary, as a free rider.
In terms of “passively benefit[ting] from EA without openly supporting it,” it’s unclear what should count as passively benefitting. In particular, there’s at least some meaningful distance between OP and EA, and it doesn’t seem to view itself as responsible for or accountable to the community (cf. point 5 of this comment). Absent evidence that OP cares whether people self-identify as EA, I don’t think their funding would count. People were emphasizing that Manifest wasn’t an EA event, SFF “explicitly does not identify as an EA Funder,” etc. I don’t think EA gets to take credit for actors who explicitly disclaim being EA entities, or who EAs will cast as non-EA actors when they do something controversial.
As far as a path forward, many other social movements (like religions and political parties) have managed to construct sub-brands or sub-identities that allow supporters to limit identification with elements of the larger group that they find problematic. For instance, one can identify with terminology that identifies you with Major Party X but makes it clear that you think the progressive (or conservative) wing is way off the mark. I don’t sense that EA has managed to pull this off yet.
Thank you for your comment.
On your first points, I think there are totally fair. I feel that’s the preconditions of the prisonner’s dilemma.
Then, I see your point on free-rider and I will reflect on it. I’d add that people mentioning how EA might have influence them or how an organization might make decisions influenced by EA principles seems completely different (to me) than “being an EA” (“identifying”) and orgs “being EA orgs”. I tend to think those latter framings are not necessarily useful, especially in the context of what I’m advocating for.