I think this is the relevant place to share this community accountability post alleging coverup of rape and anti-transgender behavior patterns at CFAR on the part of Anna Salamon and others: https://everythingtosaveit.how/case-study-cfar/
OK, "doing whatever he's doing to Twitter" then. History will show whether that is destroying it or not. Maybe your outlook on that differs from the public consensus.
The "project" was just to make a bunch of money on crypto; I don't see how the investors could justify that as a moral use of their capital. The entire industry runs on the expected losses of random less educated people, third world countries, refugees, black market vendors, and gambling addicts. Losses that come from unregulated manipulation of market value of tokens which have no real world value. Manipulation like that which SBF is now under investigation for. This is quite the stretch to say there were good intentions going in.
Yes my comment was not specific to the FTX situation, but pointing to the fact that I've seen how the most vocal ex-EAer's writing is received here. That there aren't any known cases of departures due to the FTX situation is itself extremely troubling.
As far as I know only one member has questioned the movement and departed the ranks, and continued to publicly criticize it, and their writing is now explicitly unwelcome here. The movement controls the bounds of dissent. (You can disagree, but only within the framework of EA stated principles and methodology.) Read Chomsky to see how this works.
In journalism the ethical standard is both parties have to state an acknowledgement of a conversation being off the record before the conversation occurs.
It seems, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the people running this fund (with the stated founding mission of furthering EA) were seeking to enrich themselves personally. Sam Bankman-Fried took a $1,000,000,000 loan from Alameda, and members of the company used corporate funds to purchase personal real estate. This may be a net negative to EA causes as it could influence members of the public to question the motives of future earn-to-give endeavors, well intentioned or not. https://twitter.com/GRDecter/status/1593272157907320832
I think this is the relevant place to share this community accountability post alleging coverup of rape and anti-transgender behavior patterns at CFAR on the part of Anna Salamon and others: https://everythingtosaveit.how/case-study-cfar/
OK, "doing whatever he's doing to Twitter" then. History will show whether that is destroying it or not. Maybe your outlook on that differs from the public consensus.
The "project" was just to make a bunch of money on crypto; I don't see how the investors could justify that as a moral use of their capital. The entire industry runs on the expected losses of random less educated people, third world countries, refugees, black market vendors, and gambling addicts. Losses that come from unregulated manipulation of market value of tokens which have no real world value. Manipulation like that which SBF is now under investigation for. This is quite the stretch to say there were good intentions going in.
Yes my comment was not specific to the FTX situation, but pointing to the fact that I've seen how the most vocal ex-EAer's writing is received here. That there aren't any known cases of departures due to the FTX situation is itself extremely troubling.
As far as I know only one member has questioned the movement and departed the ranks, and continued to publicly criticize it, and their writing is now explicitly unwelcome here. The movement controls the bounds of dissent. (You can disagree, but only within the framework of EA stated principles and methodology.) Read Chomsky to see how this works.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftxs-sam-bankman-fried-cashed-out-300-million-during-funding-spree-11668799774
In journalism the ethical standard is both parties have to state an acknowledgement of a conversation being off the record before the conversation occurs.
It seems, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the people running this fund (with the stated founding mission of furthering EA) were seeking to enrich themselves personally. Sam Bankman-Fried took a $1,000,000,000 loan from Alameda, and members of the company used corporate funds to purchase personal real estate. This may be a net negative to EA causes as it could influence members of the public to question the motives of future earn-to-give endeavors, well intentioned or not. https://twitter.com/GRDecter/status/1593272157907320832