You said that people could submit a form in order to make sure their work was not uploaded. I said that wasn’t good enough, but I submitted the form anyways.
My work has been uploaded without my permission anyways.
They should be removed now. Might take awhile to update on all the platforms. Could only find ones on the EA Forum. Let us know if you posted anything on other the other forums.
I’d like to be super clear here that, while I genuinely appreciate you responding within minutes of me complaining, I’m still pretty upset that this happened in the first place. If there’s any way you can reassure me that this won’t happen again, I’d appreciate it. (Options I could take from my end are setting up a Google alert for my screenname being posted on your site and/or deleting my Forum posts, but I really don’t want to!)
Don’t feel pressure to respond to this immediately, feel free to take a few days and talk to the team about what might work.
Hey, overall, the object level issue seems not good, but not terrible.
So a person’s posts were distributed on an internet podcast:
In terms of legal or outside norms, it’s unclear users have a right to prevent this podcasting. It may not be illegal to do this, and there may not be an expectation of control/privacy.
But certainly, legality isn’t the bar here, and the dignity and choices of EA forum users is a thing.
There were promises made by an “official EA org” with an opt-out form[1].
In totality, having someone’s choices then contravened doesn’t seem good.
By the way, it’s worth noting that restricting posting isn’t that hard to implement. Like, the code here is just to filter on username/user_id. This is like 3 lines of code, and the result is easy to test.
Also, my guess is that count of users who submitted the privacy request form is like <5. So that seems manageable update. At size, you can pretty much just hard code usernames as a kludge with even less SWE-type concerns.
(I’m confused by the “channels” explanation here, but that’s not my business, the point is there is at least one easy technical way of doing this, putting a pretty low floor of difficulty.)
The main issue and the reason why I’m commenting is that I’m concerned about the voting patterns.
I’m not sure why this comment is downvoted:
I’m not sure why the top comment is sitting at +1 and has 5 votes.
I’m not sure why an EA CEO has strong upvoted themselves in a thread involving mis/inaction of their org.
So, the “smell” of this voting is sort of intense.
Entirely setting aside this particular event, or the particular people involved, I think it’s reasonable to be concerned about setting examples or norms of behavior that involve control over EA institutions.
Like, funding is growing, and there’s incentive for would be “CEOs” or “EDs” to basically take the “outer-product” of the set of cause areas and set of obvious EA meta institutions, take an element from the resulting matrix and instantiate it.
In particular, people might do this because inputs/performance is hard to observe for “CEOs”, once starting it’s hard to dislodge, and in these meta orgs, existence or demand is conflated with the EA brand (allowing failure upwards).
So, in this situation, it’s already “quickdraw”.
So, let’s not add the feature of having constituencies of these warlords, voting on stuff, that situation is No Bueno.
You have put more thought than me. Also, I self strong upvote a lot.
But your suggestion would be counterproductive in some of the scenarios I’ve implied above. The user who had been downvoted has almost 7,000 karma. Removing self-strong upvoting would weaken the “self-defence” of established users while being “mobbed”.
Someone downvoted this but afaik it’s just a statement of fact. If you think it’s inaccurate, please post evidence, or if you think stating this fact is harmful or unhelpful in some way, please say why!
I wasn’t the one who downvoted the comment (and it appears to be at +4 karma anyway), but it might be because you were confidently asserting a claim without providing evidence. You previously made this claim six months ago, and Charles supplied some evidence to suggest you were mistaken. Given that you didn’t reply the last time someone posted some contradictory evidence, but continued to make essentially the same claim, it is pretty understandable people might not appreciate your demanding evidence again.
(I don’t have a strong view on who is correct on the legal question).
Thanks for the reply Larks, that gives a helpful perspective for why people might have downvoted.
The link that was previously provided was about copying message board posts to another message board, as part of a “roundup” of interesting posts, and whether an individual might be sued for that.
It’s quite a different context in my view from an organisation re-publishing an entire article that someone’s written, when they’ve expressly asked for it not to be.
I don’t think I could win damages from Nonlinear, nor would I seek to, but I do think I would have a very good case for compelling them to take down my posts (which thankfully they’ve done voluntarily).
Absolutely. We use Asana and we’ll just add it to our “Making a new channel” template to check and make sure that we have removed people who’ve opted out.
We have an automatic rule for the main channel. The problem here was that it was a one-off, static channel, so it wasn’t using the same code we usually use.
I’m really sorry that that happened. I think this fix should do it.
Hi Kat,
You said that people could submit a form in order to make sure their work was not uploaded. I said that wasn’t good enough, but I submitted the form anyways.
My work has been uploaded without my permission anyways.
What the fuck?
Oh, I’m so sorry. Where is it? It probably was a mishap with our data entry person. We’ll remove it ASAP.
All of the posts by khorton that have been uploaded to Spotify...
They should be removed now. Might take awhile to update on all the platforms. Could only find ones on the EA Forum. Let us know if you posted anything on other the other forums.
I’d like to be super clear here that, while I genuinely appreciate you responding within minutes of me complaining, I’m still pretty upset that this happened in the first place. If there’s any way you can reassure me that this won’t happen again, I’d appreciate it. (Options I could take from my end are setting up a Google alert for my screenname being posted on your site and/or deleting my Forum posts, but I really don’t want to!)
Don’t feel pressure to respond to this immediately, feel free to take a few days and talk to the team about what might work.
Hey, overall, the object level issue seems not good, but not terrible.
So a person’s posts were distributed on an internet podcast:
In terms of legal or outside norms, it’s unclear users have a right to prevent this podcasting. It may not be illegal to do this, and there may not be an expectation of control/privacy.
But certainly, legality isn’t the bar here, and the dignity and choices of EA forum users is a thing.
There were promises made by an “official EA org” with an opt-out form[1].
In totality, having someone’s choices then contravened doesn’t seem good.
By the way, it’s worth noting that restricting posting isn’t that hard to implement. Like, the code here is just to filter on username/user_id. This is like 3 lines of code, and the result is easy to test.
Also, my guess is that count of users who submitted the privacy request form is like <5. So that seems manageable update. At size, you can pretty much just hard code usernames as a kludge with even less SWE-type concerns.
(I’m confused by the “channels” explanation here, but that’s not my business, the point is there is at least one easy technical way of doing this, putting a pretty low floor of difficulty.)
The main issue and the reason why I’m commenting is that I’m concerned about the voting patterns.
I’m not sure why this comment is downvoted:
I’m not sure why the top comment is sitting at +1 and has 5 votes.
I’m not sure why an EA CEO has strong upvoted themselves in a thread involving mis/inaction of their org.
So, the “smell” of this voting is sort of intense.
Entirely setting aside this particular event, or the particular people involved, I think it’s reasonable to be concerned about setting examples or norms of behavior that involve control over EA institutions.
Like, funding is growing, and there’s incentive for would be “CEOs” or “EDs” to basically take the “outer-product” of the set of cause areas and set of obvious EA meta institutions, take an element from the resulting matrix and instantiate it.
In particular, people might do this because inputs/performance is hard to observe for “CEOs”, once starting it’s hard to dislodge, and in these meta orgs, existence or demand is conflated with the EA brand (allowing failure upwards).
So, in this situation, it’s already “quickdraw”.
So, let’s not add the feature of having constituencies of these warlords, voting on stuff, that situation is No Bueno.
I think that strong upvoting of your own comments should be disabled. I’ve noticed that it’s quite frequent.
See previous discussion about this.
You have put more thought than me. Also, I self strong upvote a lot.
But your suggestion would be counterproductive in some of the scenarios I’ve implied above. The user who had been downvoted has almost 7,000 karma. Removing self-strong upvoting would weaken the “self-defence” of established users while being “mobbed”.
Republishing someone else’s work in its entirety, without adding some commentary to argue it’s a review, would not be legal, no.
Edit to add sources:
Blog posts are copyrighted materials https://blogging.com/copyright-dmca/
Using copyrighted materials in your podcast https://copyrightalliance.org/how-to-avoid-copyright-infringement-on-podcasts/
Someone downvoted this but afaik it’s just a statement of fact. If you think it’s inaccurate, please post evidence, or if you think stating this fact is harmful or unhelpful in some way, please say why!
I wasn’t the one who downvoted the comment (and it appears to be at +4 karma anyway), but it might be because you were confidently asserting a claim without providing evidence. You previously made this claim six months ago, and Charles supplied some evidence to suggest you were mistaken. Given that you didn’t reply the last time someone posted some contradictory evidence, but continued to make essentially the same claim, it is pretty understandable people might not appreciate your demanding evidence again.
(I don’t have a strong view on who is correct on the legal question).
Thanks for the reply Larks, that gives a helpful perspective for why people might have downvoted.
The link that was previously provided was about copying message board posts to another message board, as part of a “roundup” of interesting posts, and whether an individual might be sued for that.
It’s quite a different context in my view from an organisation re-publishing an entire article that someone’s written, when they’ve expressly asked for it not to be.
I don’t think I could win damages from Nonlinear, nor would I seek to, but I do think I would have a very good case for compelling them to take down my posts (which thankfully they’ve done voluntarily).
This was the link that was previously referenced: https://librarycopyright.net/forum/view/114
Absolutely. We use Asana and we’ll just add it to our “Making a new channel” template to check and make sure that we have removed people who’ve opted out.
We have an automatic rule for the main channel. The problem here was that it was a one-off, static channel, so it wasn’t using the same code we usually use.
I’m really sorry that that happened. I think this fix should do it.
Thanks Kat, yes just from the EA Forum