There’s a unilateralist’s curse issue here—if there are (say) 100 people who know the identities of Alice and Chloe, does only one of them have to decide breaching the psuedonyms would be justified?
[Edit to add: I think the questions Geoffrey is asking are worthwhile ones to ask. I am just struggling to see how an appropriate decision to unmask could be made given the community’s structure without creating this problem. I don’t see a principled basis for declaring that, e.g., CHSP can legitimately decide to unmask but everyone else had better not.]
Even if the whistleblowers seem to be making serial false allegations against former employers?
Does EA really want to be a community where people can make false allegations with total impunity and no accountability?
Doesn’t that incentivize false allegations?
Has there been a suggestion that Chloe has made serial false allegations against former employers? I thought that was only Alice.
There’s a unilateralist’s curse issue here—if there are (say) 100 people who know the identities of Alice and Chloe, does only one of them have to decide breaching the psuedonyms would be justified?
[Edit to add: I think the questions Geoffrey is asking are worthwhile ones to ask. I am just struggling to see how an appropriate decision to unmask could be made given the community’s structure without creating this problem. I don’t see a principled basis for declaring that, e.g., CHSP can legitimately decide to unmask but everyone else had better not.]