Who ought to have a larger twitter account and it wouldn't be much effort for us to make it happen?
I think were this numerical, we'd do: (value of them having bigger account) * (difficulty to get there)/(GiveWell charities)
Use upvotes to signal the priority of the answer, and the agree/disagree to support the specific reasoning given by the answer.
IE the upvote ordering should be the correct ordering.
Ideally we'd not have anyone named who doesn't want to be, so if you are a bit in doubt, then ask their permission to name them.
Starter questions:
- Who would be easy for outsiders to engage with and understand?
- Who produces great content you wish you saw more of?
- Who deserves the ability to more easily influence discourse and meet with members of the cultural elite?
- Who has cultural cache in a different space that would allow them to grow quickly
This question is to give a sense of who ought to be supported/invested in. I think that it should be followed by a strategic look and finally funding to those individuals named. I am not authorised to do any of that.
This seems a case where there are deep partisan disagreements about what counts as a 'conspiracy theory'.
When people on the Left say that 'America has shifting racial demographics such that the previous majority group is losing power and influence relative to other groups', mainstream media considers that a good thing and celebrates it as progress. When people on the Right say exactly the same thing, based on exactly the same data, mainstream media calls that 'the Replacement Conspiracy'. The double standard is striking.
As it happens, I've written and tweeted very little about demographic shifts in the US, relative to other issues, so I'm surprised that you think this is something people would associate with me.