I think one would have to be careful here—there’s a risk of focusing on weak or poorly-presented criticisms (perhaps unintentionally and/or for generally valid reasons). Highlighting bad criticisms and then demolishing them publicly could make the EA reader overconfident.
Other criticisms may be ill-suited to meaningful responses in a brief FAQ—you’re unlikely to say anything in a few hundred words that will update that Marxist critic.
Finally, there probably isn’t—and shouldn’t be—a “party line” response to many criticisms. One can for instance think billionaire philanthropy is inherently problematic (or not) and still think taking the billionaire bucks is better than the alternatives. Writing a response on some criticisms that fairly represents a range of community views without being wishy-washy may be challenging.
None of these are reasons not to do it, just potential issues and limitations.
I think one would have to be careful here—there’s a risk of focusing on weak or poorly-presented criticisms (perhaps unintentionally and/or for generally valid reasons). Highlighting bad criticisms and then demolishing them publicly could make the EA reader overconfident.
Other criticisms may be ill-suited to meaningful responses in a brief FAQ—you’re unlikely to say anything in a few hundred words that will update that Marxist critic.
Finally, there probably isn’t—and shouldn’t be—a “party line” response to many criticisms. One can for instance think billionaire philanthropy is inherently problematic (or not) and still think taking the billionaire bucks is better than the alternatives. Writing a response on some criticisms that fairly represents a range of community views without being wishy-washy may be challenging.
None of these are reasons not to do it, just potential issues and limitations.