I have been an "EA 1.0" supporter for many years, but the difficulty this movement has had recently in distancing itself from public figures who are associated with it but act against its core tenets could be its undoing.[1]
It's understandable that a grouping that has intellectual openness and a willingness to question taken-for-granted ethical shibboleths as core values would struggle with the need to exclude as well as reach out. If EA doesn't find a mechanism to deal speedily and unambiguously with those claiming to be supporters but espousing repugnant ideas or behaving in flagrantly unethical ways, there is a strong danger that the good ideas and approaches it has been championing will be tainted by association. The problems dealing with SBF should have been a clear warning but the response there was late and weak. And the problems are just getting worse.
The largest single "problem figure" I see is of course Elon Musk. His name comes up in connection with EA all too frequently. He may not formally say he is a follower but he has certainly at times said positive things about EA topics so some may reasonably link EA with him.[2] He may be providing ongoing financial support and some of his views may be (at least formally) aligned with some mainstream EA thinking, but it should be abundantly clear to those speaking on behalf of EA's 'leadership' that his recent (and earlier) actions violate any reasonable definition of EA-compatible ethical behaviour.[3]
A search for Elon Musk and Effective Altruism should find interviews to the effect "EA leaders say 'Musk is no Altruist'. If there has been such an attempt it has not been widely circulated.
Edit: And if he is still giving money to official EA causes, it should be loudly and swiftly returned. [4]
But he's only the loudest example - what horrified me and inspired me to post this is this recent posting on r/effectivealtruism. Finding one or two people prepared to suggest those interested in animal welfare should share Richard Hanania's content on the subject was a surprise. But in fact four people there (so far) - the majority of posters - seemed to think it unfair to shun him. One said he was, "A rare moderating influence for the current right given his politics (pro-immigration, pro-intellectualism/vaccines/cultivated meat/etc, anti-pissing off allies with pointless tariffs) and relationship with the center-left. On the other, he is definitely racist." Another said Hanania "believes in genetic racial differences. I suspect quite a few rationalists believe this as well, but are just polite enough to not say it out loud."
That these kind of attitudes can be found and not swiftly and roundly condemned by moderators of an unofficial but popular EA-associated forum is reason enough for me to back away from "official EA".
In these deeply troubling times, it is unfortunately necessary for the EA community to clearly 'pick a side'. Until it does, I can no longer call myself an EA adherent, something that deeply saddens me.
- ^
Edited to make the introduction more clearly spell out my main argument.
- ^
"Mr. Musk has not officially joined the movement but he and Mr. MacAskill have known each other since 2015, when they met at an effective altruism conference. Mr. Musk has also said on Twitter that Mr. MacAskill’s giving philosophy is similar to his own." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/business/effective-altruism-elon-musk.html
- ^
I have been criticized for failing to provide justification for that statement. While there must be others with the time to provide a longer list of problematic actions, his assault on USAID alone should I think be sufficient? A good faith attempt to root out fraud and corruption would not require the intentional demolition of the entire organization, which has unambiguously been doing EA-aligned work, if not as effectively as it could do.
- ^
I stand by the rest but I would like to retract this line as it was written in the heat of the moment and doesn't really reflect my core views on how to treat money and resources provided by those one disagrees with. Given the flawed world we live in, this position, appealing as it is emotionally, is practically impossible. Those who receive such funding however must be very careful to ensure that it does not "buy" their collaboration or their silence. Take Musk's money if it will do good work but the more the movement takes the more it has at the same time to call out the actions he has taken that run against its principles.
Most of this seems unrelated to my observation that evidence of weariness toward harshly criticizing people merely for their political beliefs does not provide much evidence of weariness for criticizing extremely powerful political people for their actions.
Yes, I know what due process is. In a strict sense, it applies only to governmental actions. In a looser sense, it applies to actions by private organizations that are considering taking adverse action against people associated with it -- e.g., a private university which is considering disciplining a student, a homeowner's association which is considering fining a unitowner. I am not aware of its extension to citizens (or groups of citizens) who wish to criticize a senior government official, or to a social movement that wishes to express its disapproval of a prominent person and distance themselves from said person. There would be far less speech if the so-called "court of public opinion" acted with the constraints of government action.
Even if due process did somehow apply, the classic case on the subject explains that "identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. " Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).
The private interest of Elon Musk in not being criticized by EAs is exceedingly modest. I think the expected value of additional safeguards is low -- he has made numerous troubling, divorced-from-reality, or erratic public statements and I am unaware of any dispute about whether the statements are his. Finally, with the volume of problematic statements, and new ones coming out on a near-daily basis, the burden of adjudicating them all would be considerable for a relatively small social movement.
Relatedly, one of the reasons we can hold the government to the dictates of due process is that we concurrently give it the powers needed to carry out its functions while providing more protections. EA cannot subpoena Musk to judge him, or force him to sit for depositions on pain of imprisonment. Nor can it seek funds from the public fisc for investigations.
Indeed, the American constitutional tradition gives people like Musk less protection than you or I: he is a quintessential public figure for defamation purposes. Owing to his control of X, he has an ability to respond to criticism that is exceptional even in comparison to most public figures.
The isolated demand for "due process" rigor here is somewhat ironic given Musk's habit of shooting from the hip with criticisms about others, including federal employees when he is a public official, employment reform is within the scope of his apparent job functions, and people are suffering concrete harm (loss of jobs and contracts) as a result of his official conduct on the topic. Further irony comes from the fact that he owns a major social media platform that is infamous for people offering uninformed hot takes. These factors do not affect how we should treat him, but the irony is palpable.
There may be prudential reasons for treating Musk with kid gloves, or for not talking about him. "Due process" ain't it.