This account has been established by a long-term EA with the sole purpose of participating in this discussion: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/32LMQsjEMm6NK2GTH/sharing-information-about-nonlinear while maintaining complete anonymity due to concerns of potential retaliation.
Morpheus_Trinity
Karma: 22
These statements primarily consist of subjective impressions regarding the characters of the individuals involved, rather than concrete claims. The responsibility of providing proof does not rest with me. Regarding potential claims, such as Nonlinear actively attempting to tarnish victims’ reputation, it may be prudent to approach the Community Health department to inquire if they have been approached by Nonlinear. Such an inquiry could substantiate the validity of these rumors.
Additionally, should further investigation be desired, it might be worthwhile to contact relevant funders in the space to ascertain if they have ever been approached regarding the victims and the nature of those interactions. It’s essential to recognize that we are currently navigating the realm of hearsay and gossip. A capable investigator, therefore, holds the key to uncovering the factual truth. The pertinent question remains as to who will assume the responsibility of delving deeper into this case, or indeed, if an investigation is warranted at all.
In light of the established facts, including instances of psychological manipulation to establish a purported “family unit,” solicitation of employees to transport recreational substances across borders, and insistence on driving without a valid license, coupled with threats to damage reputations and legal action against the author of this post – all of which have been corroborated by Nonlinear – the paramount issue emerges: How many instances of misconduct must accumulate before a decision is reached to exclude Nonlinear from this community?
If a more extensive examination is deemed necessary, it should be entrusted to the appropriate authorities. In this context, the Community Health unit should stand ready to address such matters with utmost professionalism, impartiality, and a deep commitment to the welfare of the victims of any alleged abuse.
It appears that Nonlinear has reached out to several individuals, likely more than one, to request positive comments about their interactions. To maintain a balanced perspective and offer a more comprehensive view, it would be fair and valuable to share experiences from the other side of the spectrum. This would be especially beneficial for those who have only encountered positive interactions with Nonlinear and may benefit from a more well-rounded understanding.
Could you kindly provide information regarding the initial reporting of the case to the Community Health committee, along with the identity of the individual or individuals entrusted with the case’s investigation?
Is it within the realm of possibility that the relationship between Julia Wise and Kat Woods, as evidenced by the content accessible via the following link: https://juliawise.net/interview-with-kat-woods-decision-making-about-having-kids/, may have influenced the expeditiousness with which the Community Health committee executed pertinent actions?
Your assertion that, “We were familiar with many (but not all) of the concerns raised …,” piques curiosity as to which specific concerns had been previously acknowledged. Furthermore, could you elucidate the methodologies employed to ascertain their veracity?
In the spirit of transparency, and recognizing the historical underreporting tendencies of certain individuals like Julia Wise, it would be appreciated if you could enumerate the precise steps undertaken in the course of taking actions as alluded to.
Given the gravity of allegations, such as the solicitation of recreational substances from employees and the encouragement of unlicensed driving, is there not ample cause for the temporary suspension of individuals such as Emerson and Kat from participation in community events and forum activities? What threshold of misconduct would necessitate the Community Health committee to perceive such behavior as detrimental to the Effective Altruism community, thus contravening its mission and setting an undesirable precedent for newcomers?
To facilitate a clearer understanding of the investigative timeline, could you please divulge the duration of the ongoing investigation, its commencement date, and your projected timeline for the publication of conclusive findings?
Have people seen this?
This was posted in the comments on Eliezer’s FB profile.
I have had the opportunity to engage with individuals from both sides of this narrative. In terms of the individuals who are wronged, I find no reason to doubt their accounts. During my conversation with one individual, it was apparent that they harbored a deep apprehension regarding the expression of their views regarding Nonlinear. To the best of my recollection, it appears that individuals affiliated with Nonlinear made efforts to influence the funding-related processes in which they were involved, or, perhaps, made implicit threats to tarnish their reputation. There were reports of the spreading of damaging rumors by Nonlinear about this person among individuals of influence who were pertinent to their career.
Additionally, I had an encounter with a member of the Nonlinear team, and the interaction left a markedly negative impression on me. Their conduct oscillated between affectionate overtures and profoundly manipulative behavior, which gave rise to an unsettling sensation. As a mature individual, I do not easily succumb to fear or intimidation, but there was a discernible disconcerting quality in our discourse, particularly in their openness about using people for personal gain.
While I acknowledge that my impressions are inherently subjective, the depictions outlined in this article appear to closely correspond with my own experiences on both the side of the alleged victims and the accused.
I possess some additional information; however, I am currently inclined to maintain my anonymity. This inclination is driven by Emerson’s efforts to employ legal threats in an attempt to intimidate the author.
I can imagine a world where someone, driven by high levels of insecurity and low self-esteem, would go to great lengths to control those around them, despite the personal cost. In a Spotify podcast about narcissism that I once listened to, the author shared stories of people who pretended to have a serious illness like cancer, even going so far as to shave their heads and induce vomiting, all in an attempt to control their romantic partners.
I don’t think the initial goal of this discussion was to punish anyone socially. In my view, the author shared their findings because they were worried about our community’s safety. Then, people in our community formed their own opinions based on what they read.
In the comments, you can see a mix of things happening. Some people asked questions and wanted more information from both the author and the person being accused. Others defended the person being accused, and some just wanted to understand what was going on.
I didn’t see this conversation starting with most people wanting to punish someone. Instead, it seemed like most of us were trying to find out the truth. People may have strong feelings, as shown by their upvotes and downvotes, but I think it’s important to be optimistic about our community’s intentions.
Some people are worried that if we stay impartial for too long, wrongdoers might not face any consequences, which is like letting them “get away with murder,” so to speak. On the other hand, some are concerned about the idea of “cancel culture.” But overall, it seems like most people just want to keep our community safe, prevent future scandals, and uncover the truth.
Hi Zeynep, to ensure transparency, could you kindly confirm whether you were prompted by any Nonlinear team members to make this comment or if you were made aware of this discussion by them?
Hello Alexandra, to ensure transparency, could you kindly confirm whether you were prompted by Kat or other Nonlinear team members to make this comment or if you were made aware of this discussion by them?
Lorenzo, what if we view this situation as a kind of manipulation, similar to what we saw in the Kat incident when Alice’s reputation was targeted? Could it be possible that Kat has intentionally involved an employee in a romantic relationship to exert more control? While it’s a bit of a stretch, I’m curious if anyone has observed any similar behavior from Kat in the past. It might help shed light on her motivations here.
Also: “First; the formal employee drove without a license for 1-2 months in Puerto Rico. We taught her to drive, which she was excited about. You might think this is a substantial legal risk, but basically it isn’t, as you can see here, the general range of fines for issues around not-having-a-license in Puerto Rico is in the range of $25 to $500, which just isn’t that bad.”
Nonlinear appears to grapple with discerning the confluence of legality, costs, and ethical considerations in this particular scenario. It may be tempting to view this action as bearing relatively low criminal risks, given that the primary concern is likely monetary fines. However, we must also inquire whether it constitutes a judicious norm or ethical practice to enlist multiple employees in undertaking illegal activities on behalf of the organization. For, despite the ostensibly trivial nature of the potential financial consequences, the greater cost may be in terms of fostering a secure working environment—one in which employees can thrive, experience validation, and be treated with the utmost respect.The delineation of boundaries within utilitarian decision-making often proves intricate and context-dependent, as is characteristic of ethical deliberations. Yet, one might reasonably posit that, given the financial means available to Emerson, acquiring a necessary license examination for an employee or personally obtaining recreational drugs should not pose an insurmountable challenge.
Central to this discourse is an examination of the organizational environment under consideration and how it presents itself to the global community.
Regarding this part: “Third; the semi-employee was also asked to bring some productivity-related and recreational drugs over the border for us. In general we didn’t push hard on this. For one, this is an activity she already did (with other drugs). For two, we thought it didn’t need prescription in the country she was visiting, and when we found out otherwise, we dropped it. And for three, she used a bunch of our drugs herself, so it’s not fair to say that this request was made entirely selfishly. I think this just seems like an extension of the sorts of actions she’s generally open to.”
Has Nonlinear has just openly admitted to providing drugs to an employee and requesting them to procure recreational substances? This situation reveals several complex aspects: the cohabitation of employees, a romantic relationship between the owner’s sibling and an employee, and the alleged distribution of recreational drugs to the workforce. We need clarity on the specific substances involved, such as cannabis or hashish, and the countries where employees were tasked with transporting these drugs. Understanding the legal context in these countries is crucial.We must consider though, how our actions reflect our community to the young people who trust us to make a positive impact globally. Even if one believes in the decriminalization of all drugs and has well-argued views, providing recreational drugs to employees raises ethical concerns. Moreover, the practice of employees dispensing medication, especially when not a matter of life or death, warrants scrutiny.
It’s puzzling that there seems to be a lack of acknowledgment regarding the ethical boundaries crossed in this situation within the context of workplace ethics.
It’s worth noting that empathetic members on the forum seem to recognize that Alice, as evidenced by her messages, is someone earnestly seeking assistance while being mindful not to cause any disruptions. Regrettably, individuals who have experienced psychological abuse often tend to exhibit such behaviors—expressing excessive apologies and striving to avoid any form of disturbance or trouble. While I lack formal training in psychology, I am prompted to consider whether a qualified practitioner might discern traits indicative of co-dependency and narcissistic abuse within the communicated messages. This, naturally, remains open to interpretation.
Of more substantial note, however, is the observation that the initial responses have been directed towards seemingly inconsequential elements. This particular approach is reminiscent of tactics employed in portrayals of legal proceedings within dramatic television series, where the objective is to unveil minor falsehoods in an attempt to cast doubt upon the credibility of a witness. The implication is that if one can establish a falsehood in a trivial matter, it follows that untruths may similarly permeate more significant claims.What the Nonlinear team may potentially underestimate is the discerning nature of the audience assembled within this forum. Comprising educated, intelligent, and seasoned individuals, they are not easily swayed by manipulative techniques. The community holds truth and high ethical standards in high regard. To maintain discourse at a level commensurate with the forum’s expectations, addressing the most substantial allegations may be a more prudent course of action.
Good insights Amber. It appears that their chosen approach for responding to the matter involves focusing on even the most minor references to food-related inconveniences in an effort to question the credibility of the individuals involved. Interesting strategy indeed.
Good work Elliot. It appears they are employing a similar tactic to what they did when concerns were previously raised on the EA forum. This strategy seems to be consistent with their approach. Notably, during the prior instance, one of their advocates was Kat Friedman, a long-standing acquaintance. It seems they are repeating this strategy in the current context, possibly due to its prior success.
It appears that you were well-prepared to resort to legal threats against the author. Moreover, it seems you were fully aware of the situation, as evidenced by your statements regarding damaging the employee’s reputation. If the allegations being made were indeed false at that time, why didn’t you take any action to address them back then?
Regarding your statement that “many of the important claims were false or extremely misleading,” it’s worth noting that “many” doesn’t necessarily equate to “all.” Could you please specify which claims are accurate?
As for your assertion that there was “no time sensitivity,” it’s important to acknowledge that the time sensitivity in this case revolved around publishing the article before you initiated or threatened legal action, which you ultimately did. Therefore, it appears quite reasonable for the author to publish the article on shorter notice given the circumstances.
In reference to your statement, “I’m having to deal with one of the worst things that’s ever happened to me. Somebody who I used to care about is telling lies about me to my professional and social community that make me seem like a monster,” did one of your former employees not confirm having a negative experience with you on this forum as well? It appears that more than just two individuals mentioned in the article above.
I concur with David. Irrespective of the circumstances, the threat is unmistakably apparent. It appears that thus far, both of you have issued threats to individuals, either to tarnish their reputation or to initiate legal action against them. Regrettably, these actions are not enhancing your own reputation. In fact, they are casting a shadow of suspicion upon you.
Being a close friend of Kat for quite some time, do you believe that your point of view could shed some valuable light on this discussion, or is there a chance folks might see it as an effort to spruce up Kat’s or Nonlinear’s image?
In the interest of keeping things on the level, can you confirm whether you were clued in about this situation before making this post? If so, did you take it upon yourself to dig into the allegations independently? Lastly, have you received any requests or nudges from Kat or other members of the Nonlinear team to drop a favorable comment in this thread?
For the sake of full transparency, could you kindly elucidate whether there exists any form of interdependency between yourself, Kat, or any other members of the Nonlinear? Moreover, it would be greatly appreciated if you could clarify whether you consider Kat a friend, as this could potentially introduce bias into your perspective. Lastly, have you been specifically requested by Kat or any other individual affiliated with the Nonlinear team to compose this particular comment?
Do you have plans to exclude Nonlinear from the events in the near future?