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.
I think it would be straightforwardly bad if EA got associated with something like the replacement conspiracy. (Do you agree?)
> Or are EAs only permitted to have soft-Left political views?
Of course not. I did not suggest this. But it is clearly more important for EA to stay clear of associations with far-right conspiracy theories than for you to express every controversial thing you believe.