I don't think avoiding criticising political figures because they're sensitive, powerful and have some public support is a way forward either.

This sounds right to me too. In general your points seem fair. Although I will note that skepticism towards foreign aid (as practiced by e.g. Givewell charity evaluators) seems rather compatible with EA in principle.

BTW, for a few reasons, I think it's better, by default, to criticize actions rather than individuals. (For example, I suspect that makes it easier psychologically for the individuals who committed those actions to change their behavior.) So I feel good about posts like this one criticizing PEPFAR cuts.

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.

I think that's a valuable distinction, and important puzzle piece here. However, OP doesn't just talk about actions: "That these kind of attitudes can be found and not swiftly and roundly condemned by moderators..." (emphasis mine)

I'm thinking aloud in these comments, trying to put my finger on what bothered me (and, I suspect, would bother other people -- especially conservatives) about the OP, and where to draw the line.

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.

The title of OP is: The EA movement needs to be able to disown rogue "supporters", starting with Musk. So we're considering collective adverse action against a person who's been associated with us.

The key question appears to be the nature of EA. You seem to agree with me in the sense that if we were a "private association", due process would be appropriate. And I agree with you that if we were just a random group of citizens, due process would feel less necessary.

The problem is that we're something in between. You could call us a "community" -- a term that's also used to describe a university or a homeowner's assocation, which you acknowledge as venues where due process is appropriate.

You could also call us a "movement", but EA is not a political movement. It's a movement based on using reason and evidence to do the most good. In my view, hasty "disowning [of] rogue supporters" without due process would undermine core tenets related to reason and evidence.

The private interest of Elon Musk in not being criticized by EAs is exceedingly modest.

Note that we're not just talking about Musk here. OP wants us to clearly 'pick a side'. So the private interest of Musk supporters within EA sound implicated. Are they going to be fired? Deprived of funding? Forced to stay quiet? What would be sufficient to satisfy OP?

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.

"Erroneous deprivation" seems far more likely to apply if you're incorrect about the nature of the statements, not the fact that Musk said them? This attitude is part of what I'm trying to push back against -- the implicit assumption that you don't need to worry about your own errors in judging the veracity of someone's statements. This is part of the mistake Musk is allegedly making, so let's not make it ourselves.

BTW, there seems to be a bit of a motte-and-bailey thing going on here, because you were previously emphasizing a focus on denouncing actions over denouncing beliefs, but now you're talking about "public statements". Denouncing someone for public statements feels more like denouncing them for their beliefs than denouncing them for their actions.

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.

In my comment, I suggested you just focus on one or two particularly bad and particularly clear Musk actions. Again, you're a lawyer -- if someone has committed numerous crimes, it should be easy to convict them for just one of them. Imagine a prosecutor who said: "It's too burdensome to prosecute Joe because he's committed so many darn crimes. So due process shouldn't apply. Just toss him in prison." Can you see how I would find that reasoning suspicious?

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.

Agreed. But I'm not asking for nearly as much due process from EA as I would ask for from the government, either. Maybe that wasn't clear. I'm asking for "CEA community health team"-level due process, as opposed to "US federal court"-level due process. It's OK if the process is improvised and imperfect. I just want there to be some sort of procedure, or at least a gesture towards a procedure, which can itself be critiqued and improved over time.

Inserting a reminder in case it wasn't already clear: I want to emphasize that my discussion is focused on collectively "disowning" Musk, not criticizing him in an individual capacity.

Some background on my thinking here is that I see modern society as suffering from a shortage of due process in general. Public shaming is a punishment which has, at times, been regulated. Social media has made public shaming far more accessible and severe as a vigilante action, while also greatly decreasing its implicit due process requirements (like "who would actually publish this?") I think this is a major "root cause" of political dysfunction in the US. Same way hunter-gatherer tribes would feud with each other in the absence of due process to adjudicate crimes, we're suffering from politically-tribal feuds due to vigilante public shaming actions. The legal tradition in the US has hundreds of years of history behind it, but I'm suggesting we think more in terms of building up from the absolute basics of a society that currently exists in a state of reputational anarchy -- starting with lightweight, rough-and-ready approaches such as Community Notes. This is an area where the US legal tradition can serve as a source of inspiration, but it also can't automatically be expected to apply.

US political dysfunction is implicated in multiple EA cause areas, so if my hypothesis is correct, this sort of institution-building could be a high-impact topic to think about. EA's Community Health Team has had some success addressing the sort of reputation warring which has destroyed other online communities and social movements. But we didn't catch SBF. I feel more small-scale prototyping is appropriate before eventually trying to fix problems at the nation scale.

The isolated demand for "due process" rigor

I think I would likely write similar comments in response to any post calling for the EA movement to disown someone. This isn't the first time I've called for greater institutional capacity along these lines.

...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.

Some criminal vigilantes claim they're doing the right thing, and fail to offer their victims due process, yet the state offers these vigilantes due process anyways. I don't think this is particularly ironic. It seems like a fairly common situation. Due process is why we generally consider the government to be "the good guys", and vigilantes to be "the bad guys".

If you're living in anarchy, someone has to be the first to start doing due process, if you want to put an end to retribution-spiraling.