Why? I don’t see the point except that then a reader can shame the org for taking money from someone the reader doesn’t like. Let orgs be judged on their outputs per dollar spent please
More transparency about money flows seems important for preventing fraud, understanding centralization of funding (and so correlated risk) and allowing people to better understand the funding ecosystem!
I have to be honest.. I think this is a horrible solution for all three of those problems. As in, if you enact this solution you can’t say you’ve made meaningful progress on any of those.
Not only that but I don’t think EA actually contains those 3 as “problems” to a degree that they would even warrant new watchdogging policies for orgs. Like, maybe those 3 aspects of EA aren’t actually on fire or otherwise notably bad?
Example: People like to say that funding is not transparent in EA. But are they talking about the type of transparency which would be solved by this proposal? I think not. I think EA Funds and OPP are very transparent. You just have to go to their websites, which is a much better tactic than visiting dozens of EA org grantee websites.
I think what people who are in the know mean when they say “EA needs funding transparency” is something like “people should be told why their grants were not approved” and “people ought to know how much money is in each fund so applicants know how likely it is to get a grant at what scale of project and so donors know which funds are neglected”. Which is fair, but it has nothing to do with EA orgs listing their major donors on their websites.
In some sense “EA needs funding transparency” has become an information cascade. Many people say it not realizing why they and others say it and assume there is a problem where there isn’t one.
And my concern with a poll like this (Edit: and all comments on the EA Forum actually) is that people will read those buzzwords from information-cascades, then quickly conclude that the suggestion sounds important (because it hits buzzwords), and assume it will solve something, and vote for it. The result, I think, is that the real systemic issues in EA remain unsolved or are are being “solved” poorly, in a pasted-on manner that’s satisfying to the critics but doesn’t actually get at the important bits.
It almost feels like EA is full of motte-and-bailey fallacies. And I think something similar is going on with the other reasonings named above too, I just have already said enough with that one as an example 😐
The fact that a commonsensical proposal like this gets downvoted so much is actually fairly indicative of current problems with tribalism and defensiveness in EA culture.
Every EA-affiliated org should clearly state in their website their sources of funding that contributed over >$100k.
Why? I don’t see the point except that then a reader can shame the org for taking money from someone the reader doesn’t like. Let orgs be judged on their outputs per dollar spent please
More transparency about money flows seems important for preventing fraud, understanding centralization of funding (and so correlated risk) and allowing people to better understand the funding ecosystem!
I have to be honest.. I think this is a horrible solution for all three of those problems. As in, if you enact this solution you can’t say you’ve made meaningful progress on any of those.
Not only that but I don’t think EA actually contains those 3 as “problems” to a degree that they would even warrant new watchdogging policies for orgs. Like, maybe those 3 aspects of EA aren’t actually on fire or otherwise notably bad?
Example: People like to say that funding is not transparent in EA. But are they talking about the type of transparency which would be solved by this proposal? I think not. I think EA Funds and OPP are very transparent. You just have to go to their websites, which is a much better tactic than visiting dozens of EA org grantee websites. I think what people who are in the know mean when they say “EA needs funding transparency” is something like “people should be told why their grants were not approved” and “people ought to know how much money is in each fund so applicants know how likely it is to get a grant at what scale of project and so donors know which funds are neglected”. Which is fair, but it has nothing to do with EA orgs listing their major donors on their websites.
In some sense “EA needs funding transparency” has become an information cascade. Many people say it not realizing why they and others say it and assume there is a problem where there isn’t one.
And my concern with a poll like this (Edit: and all comments on the EA Forum actually) is that people will read those buzzwords from information-cascades, then quickly conclude that the suggestion sounds important (because it hits buzzwords), and assume it will solve something, and vote for it. The result, I think, is that the real systemic issues in EA remain unsolved or are are being “solved” poorly, in a pasted-on manner that’s satisfying to the critics but doesn’t actually get at the important bits.
It almost feels like EA is full of motte-and-bailey fallacies. And I think something similar is going on with the other reasonings named above too, I just have already said enough with that one as an example 😐
The fact that a commonsensical proposal like this gets downvoted so much is actually fairly indicative of current problems with tribalism and defensiveness in EA culture.
I disagree, I think people just disagree with it. If it’s tribalism because people downvote it it would be tribalism if they upvoted it too.
You really don’t think there are any legitimate reasons to disagree with this? I can think of at least a few:
The cost in terms of time and maintenance is non-negligible.
The benefit is small, especially if you think that funding conflicts are not actually a big deal right now.