Thanks for posting this! I appreciate the legibility and insight into the process here, especially during a stressful time in EA/on the Forum.
Thanks for posting this! I appreciate the legibility and insight into the process here, especially during a stressful time in EA/on the Forum.
When in any doubt on whether to encode names vs. leave them in plaintext, please encode to limit search engine visibility.
That seems pretty strong! Do you think I should have done that, for example, with the names in my When Did EA Start? post?
(Possibly I have a lower threshold for "any doubt" than you?)
Fair point -- some of the difference in meaning may actually be "in". If the thought that rot13 was necessary never crosses my mind, I wouldn't say I am in a state of any doubt on that question; having thought about the question seems to be a prerequisite to experiencing doubt.
If the argument for rot13 were sufficient for me to have thought about it, I think it is better to err on the side of doing it.
"Any plausible/reasonable/etc. doubt" would probably have been clearer, though!
I did consider leaving people's names off, or limiting them to first names only like I did in Research Deprioritizing External Communication, mostly because I think this is generally good to think about before using people's full names publicly. But the bar I normally use is more like "does including the name seem harmful", and this was clearly not.
We generally "encode" content using rot13, which means that it's hidden from search engines but anyone who's actually reading the article can read it.
If there ends up being a lot of encoding here then some sort of built-in support where you click the marked-up text and it decodes for you would be nice. A lot like spoiler handling on other sites? But I don't think it's needed yet.
Is that possible to do without the plaintext appearing in the HTML of the page?
*I've no idea how either websites or search engine indexing work
If you have to click a <button> and not an <a href=...> to make the text show up, and the text is stored encrypted of obfuscated until then, it will stay off (current) search engines because the crawlers won't trigger it to show up.
I think it's probably also more future proof: I expect search engines understanding rot13 (via AI integration) probably comes before crawlers clicking buttons.
Coming back to this (a very quick update): we're going to start responding to anonymous posts and comments that make accusations or the like without evidence or corroboration, to flag that anyone can write this and readers should take it with a healthy amount of skepticism. This is somewhat relevant to the policy outlined above, so I wanted to share it here.
This is an update from the moderation team that tries to clarify and formalize some norms around revealing personal information on the Forum. You can see the full Guide to Norms here. Please note that we might update these norms.
The line between “private information” and “public information” and the line between “personal information” and “relevant information to the EA community” can get fuzzy. We expect that there will be judgement calls about where an incident lies on these spectrums. However, there are some broad principles and some clear-cut cases. We outline them here.
TL;DR: personal information is sometimes ok to share, depending on how sensitive it is, how relevant it is to a discussion important for effective altruism, and how public the information is elsewhere. We may encode or remove some kinds of information.
A few important notes:
There are instructions on contacting the moderation team here. One easy way to get in touch with us is to email [email protected]. (Please share a link to the content that you believe shares overly personal information, explain what the information is, and consider explaining why you think it’s better to remove if you think it won’t be obvious to us.)
If you have any feedback, we’d be interested in hearing it. You can comment on this post or get in touch with the moderation team.
We generally "encode" content using rot13, which means that it's hidden from search engines but anyone who's actually reading the article can read it.
Note that if this is about me (or someone else on the moderation team), I (or whoever it is) will not be involved in any decision-making around this. You can discuss an issue like this with the moderation team without involving the person by emailing or messaging one of the moderators directly, or emailing the whole team and asking for individual ways to contact people.
Also, I feel that I should say that I don’t have any ties to any cigarette companies that I know of.
I'm unenthusiastic about a policy of suppressing unverified rumours. I think the FTX scandal and the recent concerns about sexual harassment are both cases where we could honestly have benefited from more rumours. I know that false accusations can be damaging but I think currently instances of harm from false rumours are outweighed by harm that has gone unaddressed because people feel anxious about speaking up about it.
Any policy in this area should take into account the fact that many bad stories are unverifiable by nature.