I have been thinking something similar, but had come to a few different conclusions from you. Now I’m wondering if we just need multiple complementary approaches:
I was thinking less about deliberate bad faith acts than people being bad at their jobs*
I would want something that isn’t only visible to the ‘most trusted organisations’, since a) that assumes we’ve partially solved the problem we’re addressing, b) there are ongoing questions about the level of their responsibility for the current hurricane, and c) the more people who see it, the more chances there are of spotting patterns
That means it would probably need to be open to everyone
That means it would have to be anonymous by default, though individuals could obviously identify themselves if they chose
That means it would need to apply some fairly strict epistemic standards, defined in advance, so it didn’t just become a cesspool of slander
It would generally have mean more of an org-level focus rather than targeting individuals.
My instinct is a policy of ‘it’s ok to name top managers of EA orgs (including retrospectively), but anyone further down the rung should be discussed anonymously’. It might make sense to specify the department of the org, so that the people running it take some responsibility
* Outside FTX I suspect this is more responsible for any culpability EA collectively has than any specific bad faith.
The forum is a generally bad place for pooling information in an easily retrievable way that gives equal emphasis to all of it, which is what we need for such information to be useful.
Sorry for being brief in my last answer. You made good reasonable points which I don’t have much to add on.
I stick to my last answer that forum is a good place for that, because it is very hard and often close to impossible to create new services when functionality greatly overlaps with existing service. Think about Google+ which tried to compete with Facebook and what happened. People use established service and forget to use similar one.
Forum is not perfect for it—yes, but for practical reasons I see it as the way to do epistemic standards and other things described in your comment. Forum is an established, central place for everything public like this.
I have been thinking something similar, but had come to a few different conclusions from you. Now I’m wondering if we just need multiple complementary approaches:
I was thinking less about deliberate bad faith acts than people being bad at their jobs*
I would want something that isn’t only visible to the ‘most trusted organisations’, since a) that assumes we’ve partially solved the problem we’re addressing, b) there are ongoing questions about the level of their responsibility for the current hurricane, and c) the more people who see it, the more chances there are of spotting patterns
That means it would probably need to be open to everyone
That means it would have to be anonymous by default, though individuals could obviously identify themselves if they chose
That means it would need to apply some fairly strict epistemic standards, defined in advance, so it didn’t just become a cesspool of slander
It would generally have mean more of an org-level focus rather than targeting individuals.
My instinct is a policy of ‘it’s ok to name top managers of EA orgs (including retrospectively), but anyone further down the rung should be discussed anonymously’. It might make sense to specify the department of the org, so that the people running it take some responsibility
* Outside FTX I suspect this is more responsible for any culpability EA collectively has than any specific bad faith.
I think forum is a good place for what you described.
The forum is a generally bad place for pooling information in an easily retrievable way that gives equal emphasis to all of it, which is what we need for such information to be useful.
Sorry for being brief in my last answer. You made good reasonable points which I don’t have much to add on.
I stick to my last answer that forum is a good place for that, because it is very hard and often close to impossible to create new services when functionality greatly overlaps with existing service. Think about Google+ which tried to compete with Facebook and what happened.
People use established service and forget to use similar one.
Forum is not perfect for it—yes, but for practical reasons I see it as the way to do epistemic standards and other things described in your comment. Forum is an established, central place for everything public like this.