The moderation team has encoded a paragraph in the post based on a request.
We’re working on formal updates to our policies, but generally think that sharing this kind of personal information, especially when based on rumors, especially in a way that is easily accessible via a Google Search, is dangerous. In general, we’ll probably accept requests to encode it.
Please do not add the information back, and we may remove it entirely after further deliberation.
I think it would be a very bad decision to remove information about a possible conflict of interest in EA orgs handling large sums of money.
I’m inclined to think the encryption is also bad, but I’m not as sure of that. It seems to matter if the conflict of interest actually exists or not.
Edit: your norm as stated today does seem good to me:
Please do not share unverified rumors without doing some work to check them, first. You can run things by the moderation team if you’re unsure whether you should check them.
I agree that we should strive not to out people. But it’s problematic to use this obligation to let people avoid being known for ignoring their conflicts of interest.
The moderation team has encoded a paragraph in the post based on a request.
We’re working on formal updates to our policies, but generally think that sharing this kind of personal information, especially when based on rumors, especially in a way that is easily accessible via a Google Search, is dangerous. In general, we’ll probably accept requests to encode it.
Please do not add the information back, and we may remove it entirely after further deliberation.
Should you encode parts of Habryka’s answer as well?
Thank you for checking. Habryka’s answer does not contain the names of the people involved, so for now we’re not editing it
I think it would be a very bad decision to remove information about a possible conflict of interest in EA orgs handling large sums of money.
I’m inclined to think the encryption is also bad, but I’m not as sure of that. It seems to matter if the conflict of interest actually exists or not.
Edit: your norm as stated today does seem good to me:
I’m curious why you think the encryption is bad? The information is still effectively public to anyone reading the post, the encryption purely makes it so search engines/searching the forum for “XNAME + Poly ” doesn’t return any results. Habryka’s comment explains why this info should be regarded as somewhat sensitive.
I agree that we should strive not to out people. But it’s problematic to use this obligation to let people avoid being known for ignoring their conflicts of interest.
As I said though, I’m not sure.