An alternative solution would be not to participate in the forum.

But the potential to be hurt by bad actors is (Edit: or, arguably, people with less influence and less access to non-public information are actually more likely to get hurt).

I just sent a message to the admin linking here.

1 public investigation is worth 3-10 private cases not being addressed/punished

As long as a public exposé reaches 3-10X more people, this seems entirely plausible.

Linch, IMO this isn't about racism. It's just very condescending. Both the question itself, and the general treatment of non-natives here.

My level of English is much beyond Google translate being of any help, and I understood the same as titotal. Consider that your writing might not convey the meaning you intend, rather than the readers having too poor comprehension to understand it.

Edit: like the other commenter I'll add that I know you're well intentioned and I don't feel very comfortable being part of this strong group reaction (Linch lynch?). But I felt it important to make my thoughts more explicit than just a downvote.

Some context on Netanyahu:

1. He's in the middle of both 3 personal corruption trials and a so-called "judicial overhaul" by his coalition (which we opposed to it call an autocratic coup attempt). He might say he's interested in doing this or that, but in reality his coalition is solely focused on this judicial overhaul and on the narrow needs of Ultra-orthodox party leaders.

2. He's been a politician for a few decades, and he's the longest serving prime minister in Israeli history. During that time he's earned a reputation as someone whose words and actions are utterly disconnected from eachother. Moreover, even his messages to foreign and domestic media are often very different from eachother.

3. He's a hard neoliberal from the Chicago school. He's not randomly mentioning competition - it's the only thing he cares about. "[Concentrating] enormous wealth and power with smaller and smaller number of people" on the other hand is something he has absolutely no problem with. He's done that for himself in our political context, and he loves befriending billionaires whose money and influence he can use for personal gain.

4. As I mentioned, he's the longest serving prime minister in our history. None of his governments has ever tried to deal with existential or catastrophic risks of any kind. It's not in his dictionary. The only 'existential threat' from his perspective is Iran.

5. Israel is extremely reluctant to do anything that's not for its own benefit. I guess it might be a remnant of Europe trying to kill all our grandparents.

So, even though there's some activity starting here in academic circles (mostly thanks to David Manheim), I wouldn't count on the Israeli government to move even a finger about it anytime soon.

To be clear, when I voted that talking about polyamory in the workplace is OK, I meant someone telling a coworker about their own life/preferences/experiences.

Barring autocorrect (see edit to my comment), I imagine it'd be some collection of EAs who have discussion groups for a week or two on specific topics, and at the same time try to reach consensus in the full group on a set of norms.

Sorry for the assumption then (I'm not a native speaker myself). But it looks fine to me.