I think youre right to think about the specific email contents here. For example, disclosing an email that shows Person A was aware of certain facts generally poses fewer concerns about interference with deliberative processes and reasonable expectations of trust than does disclosure of deliberations, evidence relating to an individual’s thinking or internal mental processes, etc.
Agree. I thought the article implied that more was shared with TIME than just the emails from the people concerned to senior EA leaders given their use of “among” rather than “to” and quoting a reply from a leader:
In emails among senior EA leaders, which TIME reviewed, one person wrote that they had raised worries about Bankman-Fried’s trustworthiness directly with MacAskill, and that MacAskill had dismissed the concerns as “rumor.”
(I wouldn’t have mentioned it if I’d thought otherwise, although it’s encouraging that you and Nathan Young seem to be implying that you didn’t interpret that part like I did—I was genuinely curious to get Nathan’s take.)
Still, it’s one thing to share private emails from others with a journalist and another for the journalist to quote said emails extensively—the latter would have been a much larger breach of trust.
Edit: I now see that the person quoted is the person raising concerns, not the leader—the person described the leader’s response as ‘dismissing it as a rumor.’
I don’t know what the emails contained. My general stance:
Only share private messages if there was serious wrongdoing
I would support those who warned sharing their emails
I would not support general email sharing
I sense Lawrence and I disagree on this a bit.
I think youre right to think about the specific email contents here. For example, disclosing an email that shows Person A was aware of certain facts generally poses fewer concerns about interference with deliberative processes and reasonable expectations of trust than does disclosure of deliberations, evidence relating to an individual’s thinking or internal mental processes, etc.
Agree. I thought the article implied that more was shared with TIME than just the emails from the people concerned to senior EA leaders given their use of “among” rather than “to”
and quoting a reply from a leader:(I wouldn’t have mentioned it if I’d thought otherwise, although it’s encouraging that you and Nathan Young seem to be implying that you didn’t interpret that part like I did—I was genuinely curious to get Nathan’s take.)
Still, it’s one thing to share private emails from others with a journalist and another for the journalist to quote said emails extensively—the latter would have been a much larger breach of trust.
Edit: I now see that the person quoted is the person raising concerns, not the leader—the person described the leader’s response as ‘dismissing it as a rumor.’