Local Group Organiser at EA Münster

Network for Effective Altruism Germany (NEAD) board member


How does Amazon deforestation actually work? It's not about soy.

A […] report linking deforestation in the Amazon to soy and beef production was published in Science […], Forbes and BBC then mistakenly announced that 1/5 of the entire national exports were so contaminated.


Sadly this kind of misrepresentation of scientific papers or overgeneralization of their actual results seems to be a common pattern.
Have you tried to contact the authors at Forbes and BBC? Maybe writing letters to the editor could be a quick way to curb some of the harms of sub par science reporting? (at least in cases where  the article misinterprets the underlying paper)

Privacy as a Blind Spot: Are There Long Term Harms in Using Facebook, Google, Slack etc.?

Do all EA orgs need to use the same tools? 

No, and I hope I didn't imply that there is a one-size-fits-all solution that everybody needs to switch to.

can those with added security needs (e.g. those active in countries with government repression) just use different tools

Yes, that is of course possible, and I would expect that to happen automatically. Just note that this means in some cases that we will exclude those people with added security needs from community spaces.

Things that would make me less worried about "using whatever works best":

  • switching later is actually easier than I currently think
  • information becoming available to future adversarial actors is actually not as bad because:
    • either people are really good at not posting compromising stuff
    • or there is almost no content that will become problematic in the next years
vaidehi_agarwalla's Shortform

Another possible reason against might be:
In some countries there is a growing number of people who intentionally don't use Facebook. Even if their reasons for their decision may be flawed, it might make recruiting more difficult. While I perceive this as quite common among German academics, Germany might also just be an outlier.

Moving certain services found on Facebook to other sites: [...], making it easier for people to reach out to each other (e.g. EA Hub Community directory). Then it may be easier to move whatever is left (e.g. discussions) to a new platform.

I think the EA Hub is in a good position to grow and replace some of the functions that Facebook is currently being used for in the community.

Privacy as a Blind Spot: Are There Long Term Harms in Using Facebook, Google, Slack etc.?

Thank you Aaron for the thoughtful reply.

I find your suggestions on better questions to get more achievable types of evidence very useful. @Manuel_Allgaier and me will ask them or similar ones on the EA Berlin Slack, a German EA Telegram channel and in the FB group you mentioned.

 [...] a strong prior in favor of valuing extra marginal security more than the convenience we'd lose in order to achieve that.

Yes, that is a good way to rephrase my position.

Google may be more vulnerable to breaches, but it seems much less likely than a small private server to lose data because someone makes a technical error or loses a key password.

This is probably a central crux for some. If you came to believe that the risk of data loss through admin error on a self-hosted system were lower than the breach-risk at Google, would that change your view on the convenience-security trade-off?

Privacy as a Blind Spot: Are There Long Term Harms in Using Facebook, Google, Slack etc.?

Thank you, you're right I added the predictions at the last minute, and should have spent a few more minutes making sure that they are operationalized well.

I added a clarification about the kind of leaks I meant, as you noted if any individual sharing a screenshot counts, it would not be a useful prediction.

Same for government repression – I added another question for US,UK and EU.


Increasing personal security of at-risk high-impact actors

My feeling is that this is worth looking into more.
It seems to me that there has not been a lot of public written analysis of risks associated with poor operational security in each cause area and operational security in the EA movement itself.

One possible explanation for this would be that some people have done this analysis and decided to keep the results confidential.

Still, I would also be very interested to hear if people know of such analysis being done.

With regards to death threats being realized: From my experience in Colombia, while most death threats do not get realized, they still act as a strong deterrent, often by targetting family members instead of the main target. 

Hiring a security detail is not the only possible counter-measure though: The main focus of the NGO I was working with was to increase the political costs associated with this kind of violence, thereby decreasing it's cost-effectiveness.


Privacy as a Blind Spot: Are There Long Term Harms in Using Facebook, Google, Slack etc.?

Thanks, I'll try and embed them here:

(Here i mean data leaks that happen on a company level, meaning the service provider leaks full message histories. This excludes leaks through missteps by individuals such as accidentally setting wrong channel permissions, or leaked screenshots)


(for example withdrawal of operating license, denial of work visas, etc. in any country)

Ok, this seems to be a good workaround: For posts with footnotes, use the markdown editor. Then after posting, switch to the regular editor in your profile settings, and post your elicit prediction links in a comment.

edit: updated with clarifications and a fourth question as meerpirat suggested

Which properties does the EA movement share with deep-time organisations?

Thank you for your detailed post on how to compare these kinds of organisations. I have the feeling that EA doesn't spend as much time as I would have expected (for a longtermist movement) on figuring out how to actually build a memeplex that's sticky for possibly millennia.

There is a book by John Dickie called The Craft: How the Freemasons Made the Modern World. Having only read the Economist's review (pay-walled)¹ it looks like a good starting point if somebody wants to go more in depth on how the Freemasons came to exist for so long and recruit quite a few influential people. Apparently they have around 6 million members worldwide and no central governing body.

Maybe there is also an argument to be made that their influence as a movement, and their success in spreading their values might actually be quite limited, although some of their members have a lot of influence (in some cases through the Italian mafia).

So basically: only creating a good label, that's perpetuated through rituals and associated with a lot of famous people might work well to attract conspiracy fantasies, but doesn't necessarily help improve the long term future.

1: also readable here: https://outline.com/82hYaU