(Disclosure, I read this post, thought it was very thorough, and encouraged Ben to post it here.)
It’s hard to do good criticism, but starting out with long explanations of confidence games and Ponzi schemes is not something that makes the criticism likely to be well-received. You assert that these things are not necessarily bad, so why not just zero in on the thing that you think is bad in this case?
Just to balance this, I actually liked the Ponzi scheme section. I think that making the claim ‘aspects of EA have Ponzi-like elements and this is a problem’ without carefully explaining what a Ponzi scheme is and without explaining that Ponzi-schemes don’t necessarily require people with bad intentions would have potential to be much more inflammatory. As written, this piece struck me as fairly measured.
Also, since the claims are aimed at a potentially-flawed general approach/​mindset rather than being specific to current actions, zeroing in too much might be net counterproductive in this case; there’s some balance to strike here.
(Disclosure, I read this post, thought it was very thorough, and encouraged Ben to post it here.)
Just to balance this, I actually liked the Ponzi scheme section. I think that making the claim ‘aspects of EA have Ponzi-like elements and this is a problem’ without carefully explaining what a Ponzi scheme is and without explaining that Ponzi-schemes don’t necessarily require people with bad intentions would have potential to be much more inflammatory. As written, this piece struck me as fairly measured.
Also, since the claims are aimed at a potentially-flawed general approach/​mindset rather than being specific to current actions, zeroing in too much might be net counterproductive in this case; there’s some balance to strike here.