Hide table of contents

TLDR: I'd like to have the ability to hide the author(s) of all the posts on my news feed so that I see can read the content without knowing about the source. I have some intuitions for why this might be good but mainly I think adding the feature is easy and it lets us check whether or not it's good.

Is this the right place to post this? I can't remember if there's an obvious place to suggest forum features (I think there might have been a survey a while back but I might have imagined it). Since the bulk of this post is closer to "Why you might want this" than "Why you should add this to the forum you maintain" I think it's better posted publically. Also it seems likely this can be quickly made with a chrome extension[1].

The feature

I'd like to be able to blur out author names wherever they appear like this...

One example of how this could look

(It could also be black boxes of regular size or random strings of nonsense characters like this ⏁⊑⟟⌇ ⟟⌇ ⋏⍜⋏⌇⟒⋏⌇⟒[2])

I'd like to be able to click on names to reveal them but would be ok with an easy toggle for the feature.

A larger project would be for folks at CEA to run an AB test where post authors are hidden for one group of users and not hidden for another and publish click through rates and karma from different groups. I think there will be a difference I'm not sure which setting I'd advocate for as a norm though (I'll go into why below).

EDIT: Since a lot of people are suggesting extensions / greaterwrong style solutions. One benefit of an integrated into the forum solution is the ability to separate blinded Karma from unblinded Karma (even if this is only on the back end). I'm mostly interested in what the frontpage looks like when karma is driven only by post content and not by authorship. 

Why I might (or might not) want this

I don't think I say anything super surprising in this section, you're welcome to skip it.

It seems pretty obvious that the authorship of a post affects my click through rate. There are good reasons for this. If I recognise a name as someone who I've read content from before and found that content useful I think it's more likely I'll find their new content useful too. This is the same logic that led me to watch the new Game of Thrones spin off, buy a second pair of Levi jeans, and listen to the latest Dodie album.

However this policy makes me less great at exploring new sources of insight. Historically I'm significantly more likely to re-read Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality than pick up any specific book on my to-read list[3]

This actually doesn't just affect me but also, through the karma system, everyone else. FYI this is the factor which made me decide to post this[4]. I can think of a few examples off hand where I opened a post I might not have otherwise because I know the author personally and want to know what they're up to, I then end up upvoting the post. If I extrapolate my policy to everyone else on the forum I'd expect posts from authors who have a lot of friends in the community to do better than the exact same post posted anonymously[5]. I could train myself to stop doing this (and suggest others do so) but it would be a lot easier to just anonymise posts.

Separately once I open a post I'd guess there are a bunch of associations happening at a level of my thinking I'm not aware of when I read a name I recognise at the top of a post (ala Halo/Horn effect). I mostly guessing about what these would be but I expect people I like / have agreed with before get more of the benefit of the doubt and are engaged with less critically. This would mean I'd be more open to novel or unintuitive seeming proposals from people I know who are already established in the community. I think this effect still exists when I do the obvious thing and approach posts with an open mind, you typically can't fix a bias by knowing about it.

Here are some other reasons I might or might not want this feature:

  • Anonymising the forum lets EA community builders see it a bit more like newcomers to the community would (although we can't remove your jargon dictionary)
  • Relying on just titles might incentivise better titles from authors
  • Some posts might be upvoted purely because it's valuable for the community to know what influential person/org in EA is doing at the moment. If the posts are anonymised it might make these posts less visible which might be bad for coordination in the community
  1. ^

    Here's some code which when run in the chrome console will blur authors on the front page, it might not work forever.

    arr = Array.prototype.slice.call(document.getElementsByClassName("PostsUserAndCoauthors-lengthLimited"))
    arr.forEach(v => {
           v.style.color = "transparent"  
           v.style.textShadow = "0 0 10px rgba(0,0,0,0.5)"
    })
  2. ^

    I actually spent an embarrassingly long time looking for nice looking alien character translators and these aren't up to my standard but sadly I couldn't find any that were aesthetic enough so maybe we should stick with blur.

  3. ^

    Probably the most embarrassing real world example in this post 

  1. ^

    E.g I consider this factor to be sufficient to suggest this feature and experiment but I don't know if it's necessary (in other words I don't know if none of the other factors would have been sufficient on their own).

  2. ^

    Actually I tend to click on anonymous posts because I'm curious about why they're anonymous. I'd expect a post would do better with a popular author than it would under a pseudonym.

Show all footnotes
Comments14


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

If you use Firefox, you can use a customized user CSS file following these steps -- https://superuser.com/a/319322

In your CSS, put

@-moz-document domain(forum.effectivealtruism.org) {
    .UsersNameDisplay-userName {
        opacity: %0 !important;
    }
}

Thanks for this!

For others, as well as fixing/removing the misplaced percent symbol, you also need to do the following:

  1. In a new tab, type or paste about:config in the address bar and press Enter/Return. Click the button accepting the risk.
  2. In the search box above the list, type or paste userprof and pause while the list is filtered. If you do not see anything on the list, please ignore the rest of these instructions. You can close this tab now.
  3. Double-click the toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets preference to switch the value from false to true.

I can see this getting a bit annoying/confusing, as it also blocks out commenters' usernames, but you can always hover over the empty space and read it from the link preview on the bottom-left of the window.

Jim Babcock and I built this feature! You can enable it in your account settings,  under Site Customizations. Let me know if you have any feedback!

(Because it un-blinds you based on mouse-hovers, you will not be able to un-blind yourself well on mobile.)

(I actually built it ~a month ago but forgot to write about it here.)

The extension for blinding karma and author names has been a game changer for me. Massively improves my forum experience. Strong upvote, it'd be great to have these as native features so that they are much more accessible and others can enjoy the debiasing and mental health benefits.

I tend to prefer blinding karma instead of the author name. But they're both useful at different times. I think adding both and making independently controllable would be a huge step forward. Then the community can experiment with favorite configurations for different contexts.

Thanks to the OP, I've been meaning to post about this for months. And thanks to the forum devs who are doing a ton of work behind the scenes to make everything on these forums possible.

I think adding both and making independently controllable would be a huge step forward. 

Some thoughts, not entirely related:

There was another post about blinding karma (maybe not names), at the post level (so no one can see the karma). This might have some good effects on norms and experiences about voting. 

IIRC, this idea about post-level blinding produced a disagreement about practicalities or transparency, and the conversation stopped.

  • This objection about the transparency/practicalities is solved by a system that blinds karma/names for a fixed, limited, time, say, 1/2/7 days, after which everything is revealed. 
    • Also, you can just have a user option (maybe requiring a token effort, like strong voting requires an effort) to unblind. 
    • Reddit actually implements this temporary system, so that you can't see recent karma.

There's many other details that are important. 

But basically if you implement a post level system as something authors can opt into, that seems like a win and another way to roll out this feature.

I'd be interested to hear if my experience is similar to others. Use agree-disagree voting on my replies to this comment to vote in this poll.

For times when the authorship of a post probably affected how I interacted with it. I think those effects were negative. (E.g they were closer to biasing against novel ideas from newcomers to the movement than correctly promoting important updates about influential people/organisations in the movement to the frontpage)

I can think of a time where the authorship of a post probably affected how I interacted with it

I posted something similar and there's a few comments if you want to check them out. 

(Posting here so people who just read this post can easily see) 
 

From the comments I think the consideration I hadn't considered was names on posts hold people accountable for the content of their post.

One quick hack to do this could be using an ad-blocking extension such as uBlock Origin. It has an option to selectively block parts of the website (Right click on the element and choose "Block element..." and then "Create")

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 20m read
 · 
Advanced AI could unlock an era of enlightened and competent government action. But without smart, active investment, we’ll squander that opportunity and barrel blindly into danger. Executive summary See also a summary on Twitter / X. The US federal government is falling behind the private sector on AI adoption. As AI improves, a growing gap would leave the government unable to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges and threaten the legitimacy of its democratic institutions. A dual imperative → Government adoption of AI can’t wait. Making steady progress is critical to: * Boost the government’s capacity to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges * Help democratic oversight keep up with the technological power of other groups * Defuse the risk of rushed AI adoption in a crisis → But hasty AI adoption could backfire. Without care, integration of AI could: * Be exploited, subverting independent government action * Lead to unsafe deployment of AI systems * Accelerate arms races or compress safety research timelines Summary of the recommendations 1. Work with the US federal government to help it effectively adopt AI Simplistic “pro-security” or “pro-speed” attitudes miss the point. Both are important — and many interventions would help with both. We should: * Invest in win-win measures that both facilitate adoption and reduce the risks involved, e.g.: * Build technical expertise within government (invest in AI and technical talent, ensure NIST is well resourced) * Streamline procurement processes for AI products and related tech (like cloud services) * Modernize the government’s digital infrastructure and data management practices * Prioritize high-leverage interventions that have strong adoption-boosting benefits with minor security costs or vice versa, e.g.: * On the security side: investing in cyber security, pre-deployment testing of AI in high-stakes areas, and advancing research on mitigating the ris
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Our Mission: To build a multidisciplinary field around using technology—especially AI—to improve the lives of nonhumans now and in the future.  Overview Background This hybrid conference had nearly 550 participants and took place March 1-2, 2025 at UC Berkeley. It was organized by AI for Animals for $74k by volunteer core organizers Constance Li, Sankalpa Ghose, and Santeri Tani.  This conference has evolved since 2023: * The 1st conference mainly consisted of philosophers and was a single track lecture/panel. * The 2nd conference put all lectures on one day and followed it with 2 days of interactive unconference sessions happening in parallel and a week of in-person co-working. * This 3rd conference had a week of related satellite events, free shared accommodations for 50+ attendees, 2 days of parallel lectures/panels/unconferences, 80 unique sessions, of which 32 are available on Youtube, Swapcard to enable 1:1 connections, and a Slack community to continue conversations year round. We have been quickly expanding this conference in order to prepare those that are working toward the reduction of nonhuman suffering to adapt to the drastic and rapid changes that AI will bring.  Luckily, it seems like it has been working!  This year, many animal advocacy organizations attended (mostly smaller and younger ones) as well as newly formed groups focused on digital minds and funders who spanned both of these spaces. We also had more diversity of speakers and attendees which included economists, AI researchers, investors, tech companies, journalists, animal welfare researchers, and more. This was done through strategic targeted outreach and a bigger team of volunteers.  Outcomes On our feedback survey, which had 85 total responses (mainly from in-person attendees), people reported an average of 7 new connections (defined as someone they would feel comfortable reaching out to for a favor like reviewing a blog post) and of those new connections, an average of 3
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
In our recent strategy retreat, the GWWC Leadership Team recognised that by spreading our limited resources across too many projects, we are unable to deliver the level of excellence and impact that our mission demands. True to our value of being mission accountable, we've therefore made the difficult but necessary decision to discontinue a total of 10 initiatives. By focusing our energy on fewer, more strategically aligned initiatives, we think we’ll be more likely to ultimately achieve our Big Hairy Audacious Goal of 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually. (See our 2025 strategy.) We’d like to be transparent about the choices we made, both to hold ourselves accountable and so other organisations can take the gaps we leave into account when planning their work. As such, this post aims to: * Inform the broader EA community about changes to projects & highlight opportunities to carry these projects forward * Provide timelines for project transitions * Explain our rationale for discontinuing certain initiatives What’s changing  We've identified 10 initiatives[1] to wind down or transition. These are: * GWWC Canada * Effective Altruism Australia funding partnership * GWWC Groups * Giving Games * Charity Elections * Effective Giving Meta evaluation and grantmaking * The Donor Lottery * Translations * Hosted Funds * New licensing of the GWWC brand  Each of these is detailed in the sections below, with timelines and transition plans where applicable. How this is relevant to you  We still believe in the impact potential of many of these projects. Our decision doesn’t necessarily reflect their lack of value, but rather our need to focus at this juncture of GWWC's development.  Thus, we are actively looking for organisations and individuals interested in taking on some of these projects. If that’s you, please do reach out: see each project's section for specific contact details. Thank you for your continued support as we
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
47
Ivan Burduk
· · 2m read