You touched on something here that I am coming to see as the key issue: whether there should be a justice system within the EA/Rationality community and whether Lightcone can self-appoint into the role of community police.
Pretty much every community has norms and means of enforcing those norms (“social control” to the sociologists). Those means may be more or less formal, but I don’t think communities are very viable without some means of norm enforcement. I think “justice system” implies something significantly different than what has happened here: e.g., the US justice system can throw me in a dungeon and take away all my money. To use a private example, if I were Catholic, the Catholic justice system could excommunicate me, defrock me as a priest, etc. A campus justice system can expel or fire me.
What happened here feels more like gossip on steroids. Lightcone said bad things about Nonlinear, which had the effect of decreasing community opinion of Nonlinear. That might in turn have concrete adverse effects on Nonlinear. But as far as I know: Lightcone did not, and could not, directly impose consequences on Nonlinear unmediated by the actions of the community.
Likewise, I don’t think “community police” is right, at least in the frame of modern Western societies. The police and prosecutors (collectively “police”) have the exclusive ability to charge people with crimes. They have the exclusive ability to use certain investigative tools, like search warrants. Although everyone has the ability to investigate possible wrongdoing in some capacity (e.g., journalists), the police are generally recognized as having a preeminent role. For example, if there is a police investigation into certain conduct, other processes like private organizations and civil investigations are usually expected to step aside to avoid disrupting the police investigation.
Rather, I think Lightcone’s role here is more akin to the prosecutorial role in classical Athens. Any citizen could bring a criminal prosecution. In fact, there were no public prosecutors. There was a preliminary stage, but then the matter was tried before a large jury of citizens (e.g., 500 for the most famous trial, that of Socrates). It’s not clear to me that Lightcone has claimed any role in norm enforcement that is superior to the role they would believe appropriate for any community member. True, it championed the cause of A and C, but that was a result of a voluntary decision among A, C, and Lightcone. Similar things happened in classical Athens, and Lightcone hasn’t appointed itself sole champion of people with grievances. What we are seeing on the Forum is vaguely like the deliberations of the citizen jury.
I’m not seeing a clear alternative to “private” prosecution of norm violations in such a decentralized community. Who is in a place to be the public prosecutor? One could argue for CHSP, but it is merely another private actor with no real democratic legitimacy and some serious conflicts of interests (e.g., due to being part of CEA, due to so much of CEA’s funding coming from Open Phil). I do not like the alternative of their being no norm enforcement except what is available through the legal system.
Although I can envision alternatives to adjudication by the whole community, I don’t think we can criticize the abstract idea of bringing disputes to the whole community for adjudication at this time. In such a decentralized structure, sanctions for norm violations are imposed by community actors in their individual capacities. In other words, everyone who hears of Lightcone’s charges has to decide for themselves whether they will change the way they interact with Nonlinear (and/or Lightcone) as a result. Likewise, there is no adjudicatory authority who would publicly warn everyone else of the risks of associating with an organization that has committed serious norm violations. Whatever its flaws, public adjudication seems to be the only real option at present for a certain class of matters.
Emerson talking about suing for libel—his right—was seen as defection from the norms which that Lightcone employee thinks should apply to the whole EA/rationality community. When did Emerson opt into following these norms, being judged by these norms? Did any of us?
Fair enough, but the flipside is that Lightcone didn’t opt in to following your proposed norm of not criticizing people for threatening to file defamation suits. Lightcone criticizing Emerson for his speech is Lightcone’s right. It is your right (and mine, and everyone else’s) to decide not to associate with Lightcone, Nonlinear, both, or neither based on your assessment of their various actions.
What you’re missing is that Lightcone is not just another citizen. They control a lot of money and influence. If Ben and Oli were just regular citizens these criticisms wouldn’t carry undue weight. If Alice and Chloe had published their experiences themselves, I think people would have interpreted them more in proportion (and they would have exposed to way risk), which would have been a lot closer to the system you’re talking about.
It is your right (and mine, and everyone else’s) to decide not to associate with Lightcone, Nonlinear, both, or neither based on your assessment of their various actions.
I don’t know you, but it sounds like you don’t live on EA/Rat grants. If you did, you would know it’s way more advantageous to side with Lightcone. Many would feel they could not afford not to. (Full disclosure: I have a Lightspeed grant, and obviously I feel okay criticizing Lightcone, but I might hesitate more if they were my only funding source.)
Pretty much every community has norms and means of enforcing those norms (“social control” to the sociologists). Those means may be more or less formal, but I don’t think communities are very viable without some means of norm enforcement. I think “justice system” implies something significantly different than what has happened here: e.g., the US justice system can throw me in a dungeon and take away all my money. To use a private example, if I were Catholic, the Catholic justice system could excommunicate me, defrock me as a priest, etc. A campus justice system can expel or fire me.
What happened here feels more like gossip on steroids. Lightcone said bad things about Nonlinear, which had the effect of decreasing community opinion of Nonlinear. That might in turn have concrete adverse effects on Nonlinear. But as far as I know: Lightcone did not, and could not, directly impose consequences on Nonlinear unmediated by the actions of the community.
Likewise, I don’t think “community police” is right, at least in the frame of modern Western societies. The police and prosecutors (collectively “police”) have the exclusive ability to charge people with crimes. They have the exclusive ability to use certain investigative tools, like search warrants. Although everyone has the ability to investigate possible wrongdoing in some capacity (e.g., journalists), the police are generally recognized as having a preeminent role. For example, if there is a police investigation into certain conduct, other processes like private organizations and civil investigations are usually expected to step aside to avoid disrupting the police investigation.
Rather, I think Lightcone’s role here is more akin to the prosecutorial role in classical Athens. Any citizen could bring a criminal prosecution. In fact, there were no public prosecutors. There was a preliminary stage, but then the matter was tried before a large jury of citizens (e.g., 500 for the most famous trial, that of Socrates). It’s not clear to me that Lightcone has claimed any role in norm enforcement that is superior to the role they would believe appropriate for any community member. True, it championed the cause of A and C, but that was a result of a voluntary decision among A, C, and Lightcone. Similar things happened in classical Athens, and Lightcone hasn’t appointed itself sole champion of people with grievances. What we are seeing on the Forum is vaguely like the deliberations of the citizen jury.
I’m not seeing a clear alternative to “private” prosecution of norm violations in such a decentralized community. Who is in a place to be the public prosecutor? One could argue for CHSP, but it is merely another private actor with no real democratic legitimacy and some serious conflicts of interests (e.g., due to being part of CEA, due to so much of CEA’s funding coming from Open Phil). I do not like the alternative of their being no norm enforcement except what is available through the legal system.
Although I can envision alternatives to adjudication by the whole community, I don’t think we can criticize the abstract idea of bringing disputes to the whole community for adjudication at this time. In such a decentralized structure, sanctions for norm violations are imposed by community actors in their individual capacities. In other words, everyone who hears of Lightcone’s charges has to decide for themselves whether they will change the way they interact with Nonlinear (and/or Lightcone) as a result. Likewise, there is no adjudicatory authority who would publicly warn everyone else of the risks of associating with an organization that has committed serious norm violations. Whatever its flaws, public adjudication seems to be the only real option at present for a certain class of matters.
Fair enough, but the flipside is that Lightcone didn’t opt in to following your proposed norm of not criticizing people for threatening to file defamation suits. Lightcone criticizing Emerson for his speech is Lightcone’s right. It is your right (and mine, and everyone else’s) to decide not to associate with Lightcone, Nonlinear, both, or neither based on your assessment of their various actions.
What you’re missing is that Lightcone is not just another citizen. They control a lot of money and influence. If Ben and Oli were just regular citizens these criticisms wouldn’t carry undue weight. If Alice and Chloe had published their experiences themselves, I think people would have interpreted them more in proportion (and they would have exposed to way risk), which would have been a lot closer to the system you’re talking about.
I don’t know you, but it sounds like you don’t live on EA/Rat grants. If you did, you would know it’s way more advantageous to side with Lightcone. Many would feel they could not afford not to. (Full disclosure: I have a Lightspeed grant, and obviously I feel okay criticizing Lightcone, but I might hesitate more if they were my only funding source.)
This is an excellent comment.