EA, Rationality, Sexual Assault, and Liability

Came here to say exactly this. It's extremely short-sighted, even by strict utilitarian standards. Apart from anything else, it assumes that the stories will be kept secret forever, and that the abuser will end up being more impactful than any victims they drive away. Tbc I'm not convinced that explicit cost/benefit calculations are the right way to approach these things, but even by that standard protecting abusers just dramatically fails imo.

And without litigating the whole issue of potential EA leadership awareness of SBF being rather shady, that topic has already left EA open to charges of employing an ends-justifies-the-means morality in practice. For example, I think there would be a real risk of second-impact syndrome if convincing evidence came to light that leadership EAs had failed to act on well-supported allegations because of the perceived object-level importance of the accused's work. (I am not expressing any view on whether this has happened, only noting how there is an interaction between this topic and the SBF one.)

Hm, I didn't think that bit was the worse. I DO have both of those people's words in text (DM on this forum that I took screenshots of & FB messenger messages). I've shared them with one other person. 

I feel that the potential legal claims - including the one I'm contemplating bringing, or the accused/accusers that I have connections to (again, caveat with - these are still speculative, and I'd like to share the speculation as a warning to the community) - would be far more scandalous and damaging than those DMs/messages. They would be more public than the messages, take more time, and could make other information more public (no idea what this other information could be), they'd piggyback on the SBF/FTX ties and scandals, and they'd piggyback on the Time and Bloomberg pieces. 

I would like to add that I did give the name of that high powered individual to CEA via email. I'm not one of the accusers, so any information they received from me would be second hand and highly circumspect and would need further investigation before action was taken. When I shared the name, they asked several questions that I did not answer, then a couple days later - they also wrote this and chose to stop engaging with me. 

From that post - "She referred to some other situations both on the Forum and privately, which did not contain enough information for us to identify the situation or learn more." I'm a private individual, and the onus cannot be on me in any way whatsoever to provide "enough information" or help CEA. They have the name of someone powerful, and they can chose to pursue that lead and investigate it. They have the resources and absolutely should work with the proper professionals. Rather than stating that my statements did not "contain enough information for us to identify the situation or learn more", I would have hoped they said something to the effect of "She referred to some other situations both on the Forum, and we need to investigate further before taking action." That they responded in the manner that they did is at best, not sharing information with the community (eg, if they are investigating instead of simply dropping it as stated in their comment - then they misrepresented the situation to me and the community in that comment), and at worst, disavowing their responsibility to mitigate sexual assault within the EA movement (by choosing to drop the issue altogether because I didn't give them more than "I received an accusation of SA and silencing by high power individual") --- though I suppose there is an even worse possibility that you (@titotal and @Amber Dawn) allude to you in your comments. I'm speculating here, because it's hard to say what the intent behind that comment was when so much information is kept hidden, and there are no open channels of communication.

A couple more personal thoughts:
(these ended up long, I hope the algorithm collapses them. Interested parties can choose to read and the rest ignore)

1. I'm having trouble trusting the terminology being used is accurate because of the author's liberal use of terminology in the past that did not make sense to me then. Eg, would the victim describe their experiences as they are described here? And again, teminology around calling people EAs? It's possible the author is trying to do better this time, but I'm very unsure of that as they might just be sticking to their guns as well. And anyway, even solid attempts to do better might still end up wrong for an EA outsider/newbie (eg, is the "highpowered" person Michael Vassar perhaps?). I wish I could tell but without instances and more specificity I just find it very hard to trust.

2. Emotionally, I feel frustrated. Truth is that for the last 3 weeks I've been avoiding the Forum because of stuff like this, and the day I resolve to come back, this was just posted. I feel cursed or something (tongue in cheek, but also..). I'd like the Forum to not feel like a cursed place. I'd like EA to not feel like a cursed movement doomed to never become respected again because once the waters calm someone has something else to say (valid or not it may be, [most of us can't keep dealing with this]). I'd like to feel like my mental health is not at risk by visiting the Forum or participating in EA generally. I feel such a drive to defend EA from what I view as epistemically-lacking piling on, and I have doubts that anyone else will stick out their neck to do so. FWIW there doesn't appear to have been much of this "piling on" while I was gone though! But yeah I'm frustrated. [I came back all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and now I feel deflated again]

3. Idea: I wonder if all Forum community posts could go through a brief review period, eg "We review all community posts within 24 hours of submitting. If this post doesn't meet our epistemic standards we will give you some feedback and you are free to integrate some or all of it and resubmit. We also reserve the right to approve this post but add some caveats at the top". I believe that my complaints I listed above would also have been noted by the Forum team and I do believe that helping people improve their posts is worthy. 

4. My unfairness alarm is ringing, and it's saying something like "I hope that this 'pertinent' info is being shared in major tech forums, burning man camps etc as well. Those groups which are likely to be more implicated." If not, this seems like a vendetta against EA. I mean the article does talk more about EA than the other groups and I'm wondering if it is because EAs are the ones the author tried to interface with about all this (correctly or incorrectly) and when the author didn't get the response they wanted, EA started to get classed in their mind as the "bad guys". Maybe EA is getting punished because it is the only group of those listed which does actually have a [dedicated] team which is actually trying and having conversations about this. The visible are easier to name than the invisible. It definitely feels to me that we are getting most or all the responsiblity for the SF SAs that the author has heard of, even if the victims or accusers may have been 2 or 3 steps removed from EA? Perhaps I am wrong and I'd be glad to see that I am. I'd like to trust that the world is not just piling on EA but that this is an overall motion throughout the SF Bay area. The way that I can be proved wrong here is if someone shows me evidence that this is being brought to other groups too with equal fervor? Of course it is hard to do with this article since it basically let's everyone else off scott free except EA.  I'd appreciate anyone sharing links to such discussion in other communities if you have it, and in future I'll calm down about my suspicions that EA is getting scapegoated. The communities named in the piece are: subgroups of tech, EA (Effective Altruists), rationalists, cybersecurity/hackers, crypto/blockchain, Burning Man camps, secret parties, and coliving houses.

5. On a complimentary note, I agree with the author's ideas that a more formal and professional process is needed in reporting and determining community response. I wish I could stop at the compliment, but that said I feel confused that the author appears to believe that a closer-to-judicial process is out of bounds. In my mind, if you don't want a judicial-like process for claims of rape and sexual assault (which boggles my mind but moving on), the CH team's process is quite good. At least as a starting point, I'd think it's like 80% of the way there and leagues better than what most non-corporations/social communities have? So I wonder what else they might mean.
So, to clarify, I want a more formal process too but personally I think that if anything the CH team's reporting process right now isn't judicial enough, notably in that the accused is not necessarily privy to the details of the claims made against them. I think as long as things are not fully transparent to the accused, we should expect problems to go under the radar and accused parties to return to private parties and things, because frankly people will assume it was less bad without knowing details. If victims want justice and proper response and are wiling to report at all, that's great and I really want to support them! I also think it's the nature of the world that you can't expect a proper response without something more trial-like occurring. I think many different cultures evolved toward the schelling point of trials for a reason. 
We have a duty to other members of the community and future potential victims as much as to the victims, and trial-like-things do the best job at ensuring future safety and ensuring that concrete policies (which the author seems to like) are implemented, I think.
And we (or, the people handling reports anyway) also have an ethical duty to hear both sides as accurately as possible. I have learned from personal experience that it is often unworkably labor-intensive to do due diligence on complaints without doing the discussion in real-time with multiple actors/jury present. I'm not saying that the victim and accused need to be on the same call or anything, but that processes which are deliberately not in-person or deliberately giving the victim more services than the accused to avoid the judicial feel, and avoid putting the victim on the spot, either lead to a lot more work in writing (an unworkable amount. Like think 2 weeks or more of work-hours of writing back and forth for each serious detailed case), or missed opportunities to address things and ask clarification as concerns arise, or misunderstandings that will come up later. BTW I say all this as someone who has reported men in my personal life and EA. Communities should support victims in coming forward.. and with serious claims that will sometimes mean all the way forward to ensure proper response.

I expect this comment to get disagrees from most because there are multiple different unpopular or rarely voiced things so it has something for everyone to dislike lol. I've noticed forum users tend to disagree-vote any comment that has even one false/disagreeable statement even if the rest is okay, in true logician fashion. I'll just remind anyone who got this far that its just my thoughts I didn't even want as a top level comment, but maybe someone will find value here and there.

Frankly, I do not care what EA/CEA thinks at this point, nor is my piece meant to persuade you.  suspect the way I think and the way you think are so divergent that there is no middle ground; further, I believe you will poke holes in whatever I say no matter how I say it. I didn't include the whole piece because you are correct in that the "interconnected community" stuff isn't relevant to EA/CEA. I hyperlinked to CEA's response earlier in the article, as soon I mention CEA (I don't find it necessary to hyperlink more than once). I only hyperlinked/screen shot public forum posts, and not private emails/DM/etc. However, there are a couple things I wanted CEA/EA/the orgs to be aware of, and those are the parts I've added to this post. 

That post from Catherine Low is the post that I would give to a lawyer as being defamatory. I've also included that I've counted at least 30 situations in which I believe a legal claim CAN be brought against CEA/another org in the system. I can't understand why CEA didn't hire lawyers to investigate their risk. I can't understand why you're focusing on the parts of the article that don't relate to EA instead of engaging in further discussion and debate, approaching with curiosity to learn more about these situations, and especially, if we're going to be purely utilitarian, approaching with curiosity about any potential liability that the movement may expose itself to. Social stuff, whether someone is "thought" to be part of EA, is popular or signed the pledge, etc. won't matter in a court of law (IMO, consult a lawyer for actual legal advice). I suggest you speak to a lawyer if you want to understand the criteria I used (which I understand you dont have access to, what I mean by this is that you speak to a lawyer to understand what sorts of relationships CEA/other org could be held liable for). CEA's claims in that post that you feel is sympathetic is defamatory - IMO, not legal advice, I haven't yet consulted a lawyer - because it blatantly lies about the length and nature of the actual relationship. 

The piece is (1) to highlight a problem you do not see as a problem to the world outside of you, and (2) a warning of the legal risk, including the legal risk in the treatment of me (just a warning not legal advice).

PS, no, the high powered person isn't Michael Vasser, who I don't consider "high powered". It's someone that hasn't been outed publicly yet. 

PPS no, EA is not the "only" group that is trying to do something. Far from it - many groups have taken action, and are very effective, and I'd highly recommend you look further/do your research into this before accusing others of not taking action. 

PPPS if you "I feel such a drive to defend EA from what I view as epistemically-lacking piling on, and I have doubts that anyone else will stick out their neck to do so. FWIW there doesn't appear to be much of this while I was gone though!" - maybe EA ought to consider how it treats those outside of EA - especially people such as myself, who, as an outsider, helped your movement fo years, until you were unkind to me - and not see yourself as the blameless victims. Your movement has made some egregious mistakes, and taking accountability and treating others with kindness may yield others treating your movement kindly back, and others wanting to join and help you grow instead of piling on. You cannot be unkind and expect kindness back.

Hello Robert. I suggest you might read other comments I've left. I had provided information for years to EA, and I could not continue doing so without pay. I've mentioned in the comments that I have no desire to work with CEA after the events I speak of. Specifically, I felt that CEA was using information obtained through me in ways that were putting me at risk of liability. I added the piece about defamation laws in the UK versus US because CEA using information they obtained through me puts them at even greater risk than it does me, and I'd like to them to stop doing that - I hope you would as well, if you care about the movement. I asked to work with them so I could share information in ways that (1) reduced the legal risk to me personally, and (2) helped survivors/increased reporting. CEA declined, and wrote a piece I believe is defamatory.  hope CEA does chose to work with experienced investigators for the investigation they are conducting, and lawyers instead of handling it in house. This is also why I'd like to warn of the risks taken. 

Additionally, earlier in the piece - I say "tech, EA (Effective Altruists), rationalists, cybersecurity/hackers, crypto/blockchain, Burning Man camps, secret parties, and coliving houses". Later in the piece and in this forum, I've clarified the number of cases I feel - without a full legal investigation, which could change this - how many cases put CEA/other org at legal risk. You are correct that I'm not the person to do this, but I hope CEA/another org chooses to work with the appropriate professionals to find out how / what the risks I speak of are

I've added the caveats because I do have a legal degree (and I 100% know this will be downvoted, because every time I've brought that up, it gets downvoted). For legal reasons, I add disclaimers. I can understand how that comes across as wishy-washy to a lay person, and when I was writing my piece, I knew it was likely someone would write  a post such as yours. However, at the end of the day, I felt I'd rather protect myself legally and that it was important for me to speak my experiences and the knowledge I've gathered. I can't emphasis this strongly enough to the orgs within the movement: please, please protect yourselves. 

I'd also prefer NOT to do the legal thing and hope that warnings of those options might spur action and communication, but whenever I do have contact with the movement and/or people from the orgs, my motives are called into question in unfavorable ways, rather than curiosity about why I might say some of the things I say. You ask people to form their own opinions, and then launch into a lengthy, persuasive piece about your opinions, and throw out accusations  and discredit rather than asking questions. 

It’s - to me - especially sad that no one has expressed interest in finding out about the “30 cases”, nor expressed sadness that so many assaults happened. 

Further, I understand the way I speak/write is quite different from that of most EAs, but perhaps some outside perspectives and voices can help you. I'd like fo your movement to stop doing things that might not be legal, and I had hoped that point would come across, but judging from your post and the upvotes, that doesn't work. I understand that I'm saying isn't pleasant and is quite difficult to hear, and so, it's likely that your movement reacts with defensiveness and tries to discredit me. And I understand that the language I use, even when I try to frame it gently, isn't the way EAs speak. I am, however, trained in formal logic and rhetoric, so I don't speak illogically - though I find it too time consuming and unnatural to reframe my writing in EA friendly ways.  

Small correct - I did not speak to CEA in July 2022 - I spoke to them in August 2022. And yes, I didn't do this full time until recently and so my website also dates to that time - you can also find out my name and look me up on LinkedIn if you'd like more information about me/my background. And - I do have private communications that show longer work around this issue.

Seems like there is