I dislike “end justify the means”-type reasoning. The version of effective altruism I subscribe to is about being a good citizen, while ambitiously working toward a better world.
Importantly, in 2007 the OP engaged in “anonymous and deceptive online promotion” as part of their efforts to promote GiveWell, while being GiveWell’s executive director (after being caught, they were demoted to program officer).
(If no one mentioned this here, I would consider it to be evidence for lack of integrity of the EA community.)
It’s probably worth noting that Holden has been pretty open about this incident. Indeed, in a talk at a Leaders Forum around 2017, he mentioned it precisely as an example of “end justify the means”-type reasoning.
I don’t mean to endorse Holden’s actions—they were obviously ill-judged—but this reads as pretty lightweight stuff. He posted a few anonymous comments boosting GiveWell? That is so far away from what it increasingly looks like SBF is responsible for—multi-billion dollar fraud, funneling customer funds to a separate trading entity against trumped-up collateral, and then running an insolvent business, presumably waiting for imminent Series C funding to cover the holes.
The fact that some FTX people did terrible stuff presumably doesn’t mean that we should lower our standards; so I’m not sure what the point of the comparison here is.
We don’t want to shrug our shoulders at all bad behavior that falls short of multibillion-dollar fraud, and I took ofer to be making a local point “be mindful that other EAs have screwed up on honesty, and don’t treat us (or specifically Holden) like flawless authorities here even if we’re community leaders giving confident moral advice”, not drawing an equivalence between FTX and the GiveWell astroturfing.
I don’t mean to endorse Holden’s actions—they were obviously ill-judged—but this reads as pretty lightweight stuff. He posted a few anonymous comments boosting GiveWell? [...]
The comments on the “Ask Metafilter” forum intended to give readers the false impression that they were looking at a genuine interaction between the user “geremiah” (who asked for recommendations for charities) and the user “Holden0” who replied (and recommended GiveWell). Both these users were actually the OP. Additionally, the user “geremiah” replied to someone else:
Mike, did you bother to look at what Holden0 linked to? Granted, they don’t look at enough causes, but they did a bunch of work to figure out who’s good and published it. That’s what I’m looking for. […]
If anyone has more sites along the lines of givewell.net, please share.
[…]
These comments can be seen at this page, which is linked to from the GiveWell page that I linked to.
It’s a mistake, but I don’t think an egregious one, and he’s owned it ever since. I think you are being a bit prim. People make mistakes, and learn from them—that’s life. This was 15 years ago, and he’s done an awful lot of good since. I don’t know why you think publicly dragging him through the mud is right or helpful.
I would be spectacularly stupid if I was. To be honest, I barely know the guy. I’m not even an effective altruist, I’m just interested in some of the movement’s first-order research.
Yes. To be clear, I agree with you re Holden’s mistake not being egregious, and him learning from it and doing a lot of good after etc. Was aiming at a little comedic relief. [I feel like we need emoji reacts here.]
Importantly, in 2007 the OP engaged in “anonymous and deceptive online promotion” as part of their efforts to promote GiveWell, while being GiveWell’s executive director (after being caught, they were demoted to program officer).
(If no one mentioned this here, I would consider it to be evidence for lack of integrity of the EA community.)
It’s probably worth noting that Holden has been pretty open about this incident. Indeed, in a talk at a Leaders Forum around 2017, he mentioned it precisely as an example of “end justify the means”-type reasoning.
It’s also listed under GiveWell’s Our Mistakes page.
I don’t mean to endorse Holden’s actions—they were obviously ill-judged—but this reads as pretty lightweight stuff. He posted a few anonymous comments boosting GiveWell? That is so far away from what it increasingly looks like SBF is responsible for—multi-billion dollar fraud, funneling customer funds to a separate trading entity against trumped-up collateral, and then running an insolvent business, presumably waiting for imminent Series C funding to cover the holes.
The fact that some FTX people did terrible stuff presumably doesn’t mean that we should lower our standards; so I’m not sure what the point of the comparison here is.
We don’t want to shrug our shoulders at all bad behavior that falls short of multibillion-dollar fraud, and I took ofer to be making a local point “be mindful that other EAs have screwed up on honesty, and don’t treat us (or specifically Holden) like flawless authorities here even if we’re community leaders giving confident moral advice”, not drawing an equivalence between FTX and the GiveWell astroturfing.
The comments on the “Ask Metafilter” forum intended to give readers the false impression that they were looking at a genuine interaction between the user “geremiah” (who asked for recommendations for charities) and the user “Holden0” who replied (and recommended GiveWell). Both these users were actually the OP. Additionally, the user “geremiah” replied to someone else:
These comments can be seen at this page, which is linked to from the GiveWell page that I linked to.
It’s a mistake, but I don’t think an egregious one, and he’s owned it ever since. I think you are being a bit prim. People make mistakes, and learn from them—that’s life. This was 15 years ago, and he’s done an awful lot of good since. I don’t know why you think publicly dragging him through the mud is right or helpful.
Are you Holden? (sorry, couldn’t resist)
I laughed.
I would be spectacularly stupid if I was. To be honest, I barely know the guy. I’m not even an effective altruist, I’m just interested in some of the movement’s first-order research.
Yes. To be clear, I agree with you re Holden’s mistake not being egregious, and him learning from it and doing a lot of good after etc. Was aiming at a little comedic relief. [I feel like we need emoji reacts here.]
Do you think OP should have a disclaimer about this incident in perpetuity?
If not, it’s been 15 years. When do you propose the cutoff would be?