The fact that this is being strongly downvoted without comment is disturbing. If the legal claim were wrong, and Effective Ventures had done the due diligence to know they were wrong, it would be trivial for one of the staff to say so. As it is, this looks worryingly like a concerted effort to hide this post.
If you are a downvoter who sincerely thinks the post is wrong or in bad faith but don’t feel motivated to explain why, please consider at least identifying yourself to falsify this paranoid take (yes, we recognise the irony of asking this).
it would be trivial for one of the staff to say so.
It seems unreasonable to expect a reply from staff to a forum post within 3 hours, let alone to one that is fairly accusatory in tone. Also, many people will downvote and explain their reasoning later when they have more time in the evening.
I will also reiterate my earlier comment that we should establish norms of contacting organisations with such accusations before they are published, unless good reasons exist not do so.
this looks worryingly like a concerted effort to hide this post
The moderation team looked into voting here (without revealing identities) and didn’t notice any patterns, e.g. no votes clustering together with suspicious timing, mass down voting, etc.
At least on the first point, I do not feel you adequately researched this issue before making a public accusation. Although it wouldn’t be reasonable to hold you to the standards of a lawyer, it should have been pretty clear that charities do sometimes engage in transactions that result in some financial benefit to trustees. After all, some trustees are organizational employees. That should have triggered further research on your part and/or caused you to tone down your post from an accusation to a genuine question.
“Disturbing” seems to be too strong of a claim. You just posted this, so it might be easier/faster for someone who knows these claims are false to downvote the post instead of putting together a statement based on information from inside the organization they work for.
There are also perfectly reasonable explanations for these situations that don’t involve illegal activity. Why do you feel you deserve a defense from someone involved in these scenarios or at EV? (genuine question, I mean this in good faith)
Why do you feel you deserve a defense from someone involved in these scenarios or at EV?
We don’t ask for a defence! We think that if the laws have been broken, then it’s important that the EA community and its critics are aware of this.
There are also perfectly reasonable explanations for these situations that don’t involve illegal activity.
Also in good faith: could you describe an example reasonable explanation? We might have misinterpreted the relevant laws, but it seems unambiguous that the first case is against the law as described unless the ‘adequate legal authority’ clause applies—and if it does, then it seems unambiguously not against the law. Similarly, if the GDPR functions as the quoted text implies (and if Cremer’s account was accurate, which isn’t a given), it seems unambiguous that this manner of storing data contravenes it.
The fact that this is being strongly downvoted without comment is disturbing. If the legal claim were wrong, and Effective Ventures had done the due diligence to know they were wrong, it would be trivial for one of the staff to say so. As it is, this looks worryingly like a concerted effort to hide this post.
If you are a downvoter who sincerely thinks the post is wrong or in bad faith but don’t feel motivated to explain why, please consider at least identifying yourself to falsify this paranoid take (yes, we recognise the irony of asking this).
It seems unreasonable to expect a reply from staff to a forum post within 3 hours, let alone to one that is fairly accusatory in tone. Also, many people will downvote and explain their reasoning later when they have more time in the evening.
I will also reiterate my earlier comment that we should establish norms of contacting organisations with such accusations before they are published, unless good reasons exist not do so.
Especially when any proper response would need to be run by lawyers
The moderation team looked into voting here (without revealing identities) and didn’t notice any patterns, e.g. no votes clustering together with suspicious timing, mass down voting, etc.
At least on the first point, I do not feel you adequately researched this issue before making a public accusation. Although it wouldn’t be reasonable to hold you to the standards of a lawyer, it should have been pretty clear that charities do sometimes engage in transactions that result in some financial benefit to trustees. After all, some trustees are organizational employees. That should have triggered further research on your part and/or caused you to tone down your post from an accusation to a genuine question.
I’ve been trying to downvote the kind of clickbaity content that attracts my attention and wastes my time- especially since reading this post.
I’m sad that it’s going to needlessly become a focal point of discussion and waste everyone’s valuable time.
“Disturbing” seems to be too strong of a claim. You just posted this, so it might be easier/faster for someone who knows these claims are false to downvote the post instead of putting together a statement based on information from inside the organization they work for.
There are also perfectly reasonable explanations for these situations that don’t involve illegal activity. Why do you feel you deserve a defense from someone involved in these scenarios or at EV? (genuine question, I mean this in good faith)
We appreciate the reply!
We don’t ask for a defence! We think that if the laws have been broken, then it’s important that the EA community and its critics are aware of this.
Also in good faith: could you describe an example reasonable explanation? We might have misinterpreted the relevant laws, but it seems unambiguous that the first case is against the law as described unless the ‘adequate legal authority’ clause applies—and if it does, then it seems unambiguously not against the law. Similarly, if the GDPR functions as the quoted text implies (and if Cremer’s account was accurate, which isn’t a given), it seems unambiguous that this manner of storing data contravenes it.