If you publish a bad pieces and share them with millions of people, I don’t really feel obliged to talk or listen to other things you write until you correct the inaccurate piece. I don’t think any other community would and I think it’s a bad use of our time to extend this absurd level of charity.
People are free to tell me the wired article wasn’t inaccurate or lazy, but scanning it, it looks that way.
Here are quote I could find in 15 minutes from your first article that leave the reader with an inaccurate impression. I have not read this new article.
“Elon Musk has said that EA is close to what he believes”—has Musk acted on these supposed beliefs or is this just guilt by association?
“comparable to what it’s estimated the Saudis spent over decades to spread Islamic fundamentalism around the world”—I can find many things that cost $46 but I note that you chose a terrorist ideology
“”Insecticide-treated bed nets can prevent malaria, but they’re also great for catching fish. In 2016, The New York Timesreported that overfishing with the nets was threatening fragile food supplies across Africa.” ”—my sense is that this is widely debunked. As a result of your article it was shared by Marc Adreessen. As you yourself note we should count harms as well as benefits. I could this as a harm to what I am confident is an effective way to stop malaria.
‘In a subsection of GiveWell’s analysis of the charity, you’ll find reports of armed men attacking locations where the vaccination money is kept—including one report of a bandit who killed two people and kidnapped two children while looking for the charity’s money.’ ”—I think it’s a bit absurd to imply that the norm is to count this stuff as the costs of aid. Perhaps it should be (and it’s good that givewell mentioned it) but the implication that they are unusually bad for not doing so?
I could go on.
Leif, we do not owe you our time. You had the same social credit that all critics have and a large platform. You could have come here and argued your case. I am sure people would have engaged. But for me, you have burned that credit, sharing inaccuracies to millions of people. Your piece started a news cycle about the harms of bednets based on inaccurate information. That has real harms. So I don’t care to read your piece.
I don’t know whether I am the hero in my own story—I have done many things I regret—but I do know a thing or two about dealing with those I disagree with. I would not publish a piece with this amount of errors and if I did I wouldn’t expect people to engage with me again. I do not understand why you think we would.
If you publish a bad pieces and share them with millions of people, I don’t really feel obliged to talk or listen to other things you write until you correct the inaccurate piece. I don’t think any other community would and I think it’s a bad use of our time to extend this absurd level of charity.
People are free to tell me the wired article wasn’t inaccurate or lazy, but scanning it, it looks that way.
Here are quote I could find in 15 minutes from your first article that leave the reader with an inaccurate impression. I have not read this new article.
“Elon Musk has said that EA is close to what he believes”—has Musk acted on these supposed beliefs or is this just guilt by association?
“comparable to what it’s estimated the Saudis spent over decades to spread Islamic fundamentalism around the world”—I can find many things that cost $46 but I note that you chose a terrorist ideology
“”Insecticide-treated bed nets can prevent malaria, but they’re also great for catching fish. In 2016, The New York Times reported that overfishing with the nets was threatening fragile food supplies across Africa.” ”—my sense is that this is widely debunked. As a result of your article it was shared by Marc Adreessen. As you yourself note we should count harms as well as benefits. I could this as a harm to what I am confident is an effective way to stop malaria.
‘In a subsection of GiveWell’s analysis of the charity, you’ll find reports of armed men attacking locations where the vaccination money is kept—including one report of a bandit who killed two people and kidnapped two children while looking for the charity’s money.’ ”—I think it’s a bit absurd to imply that the norm is to count this stuff as the costs of aid. Perhaps it should be (and it’s good that givewell mentioned it) but the implication that they are unusually bad for not doing so?
I could go on.
Leif, we do not owe you our time. You had the same social credit that all critics have and a large platform. You could have come here and argued your case. I am sure people would have engaged. But for me, you have burned that credit, sharing inaccuracies to millions of people. Your piece started a news cycle about the harms of bednets based on inaccurate information. That has real harms. So I don’t care to read your piece.
I don’t know whether I am the hero in my own story—I have done many things I regret—but I do know a thing or two about dealing with those I disagree with. I would not publish a piece with this amount of errors and if I did I wouldn’t expect people to engage with me again. I do not understand why you think we would.
I hope you are well, genuinely.