ElliotJDavies

630Copenhagen, DenmarkJoined Mar 2020

Comments
98

For what it's worth, I really enjoyed EAGxVirtual and would be excited to see more of them. 

I guess there's many ways to get there. I am interested in knowing what EA Anywhere thinks of this. I personally would be happy to help out in running an online conference (context: currently content lead for EAGxNordics). 

Relevant info: this is essentially a CRM database (Customer Relations Management), which very commonly used by companies and non-profits. Your name is likely on hundreds of different CRM databases.

Let's imagine for example, my interaction with Greenpeace. I signed a petition for Greenpeace when I was a teenager, which input my phone number, email and name into a Greenpeace CRM. Greenpeace then might have some partners who match names and email address with age and earning potential. They categorise me as a student, with low earning potential but with potential to give later, so they flag me for a yearly call to try to get me to sign up to be a member. If I was flagged as being a particularly large earner, I imagine more research would have been done on me, and I would receive more intensive contact with Greenpeace. 


CRMs are by design pretty "creepy", for example, if you use Hub Spot for newsletters,  it shows de-anonymised data for who viewed what, and for how long. I imagine CRMs that have access to browser cookies are 100x more "creepy" than this. 

The steelman for these programmes is that they're essentially talent arbitrage. A high-school students earning potential is very little at 18, but just 5 years later it could be a 6 figure sum. If someone's earning potential is analogous to the amount of impact they could make, and you'reable to change the area they focus on, then you could imagine 50k USD is quite cheap (esp for influencing ones entire career).

The 50k USD here would be to attract the most talented students.

Some criticism of this theory of change:

  • the programme selects for privileged students who are unlikely to be value aligned with effective altruism

  • It's really hard to influence someone's career

  • the value of someone's career is low

  • the values instilled by the programme are not aligned with doing good (or are actively harmful)

  • talented Americans are not neglected, and ATLAS is likely to get outcompeted by other status/wealthy corporations

Note: this comment doesn't necessarily attempt to reflect my opinions. It's also low effort/and written on mobile.

Multiple high-profile women have told me that they felt pressured to be polyamorous by men in the community

I too have (consistently) seen this, so I am grateful to hear it being brought up publicly

I'm concerned that Davis' comment was not interpreted in good faith.

I imagine a comment criticising a culture of alcohol consumption in a community, leading to higher rates of violence. I reply stating what will the community do to stop me safely and legally consume alcohol, ban me from drinking it? 

This "personalised oppression" framing is seems obviously fallacious if you substitute polyamory for any other behaviour. 

Thanks for sharing! For anyone wondering how to subscribe to newsletters without filling your email inbox, you can do the following:

  • use Gmails filter function "skip the inbox" , and filter into newsletter folder

  • use killthenewsletter to turn newsletters into an rss feed, and use and rss feed to keep track of things you're interested in reading about

Who is the victim that I am blaming here?

I mean victim blaming in a sort of conceptual way. I guess the "victims" in this case would be potential targets of the far-right, who would correctly describe Nya DagBladet as far-right.

They might be disappointed if they are told they actually caused this problem, because the term is used to often. 

This might be particular upsetting, if someone has been the target of harassment or violence from someone on the far-right. 

As noted by others, I am also regretful to reflect on how much stress this has caused the FLI team. 

However, I think it's important to note I still have some concerns, for 2 reasons: 

1) The FAQ linked makes a lot of sense assuming a Texas Sharpshooter setup (i.e. many far-right newspapers apply for grants from FLI, and one makes it through ), but I think this seems much less plausible because of the personal connections FLI board members have to the newspaper.
 

5) Was nepotism involved? In particular, would FLI's president's brother have profited in any way had the grant been awarded?
 

This is the only section of the FAQ I can see this that addresses this concern. However, the prompted question I read as a (perhaps accidental) straw-man. I have not seen any comments on the associated blog posts, around the concern that the brother would financially benefit. I don't generally assume that being a far-right journalist/communicator is particularly profitable. My understanding is that far-right communicators exist because of ideological motivations. 

2) There seems to be a repeated subtext, that it was initially  hard to identify the newspaper as far-right.  I reject this proposition in entirety - a cursory glance of the website will immediately  inform you they are not aligned with FLI's goals. I find it much more plausible there was no background check whatsoever in the initial stage, or that said background check was done by someone with a nepotistic bias. 

The following statement is what prompted me to leave this comment: 
 

He [The brother who wrote for the newspaper] was shocked by the recent revelations of extremism and plans no further association with the newspaper. 

I find it extremely unplausible that the brother, despite contributing significantly to the newspaper, had no-knowledge that he was writing for a far-right newspaper. 

I am not sure why FLI would suggest this with high confidence, especially since it has little  relevance to the matter at hand. 

Thanks for clarifying. I read it as provocative because of the wording

Load More