Thank you for the clarification!
But it seems to me that in every instance that I've seen there has either been a good explanation or the failing has been at worst a) bad decisions made for good reasons, b) lapses in personal judgement, or c) genuine disagreements about which actions are worth doing.
I think you make a good point that many things are (a) or (b), which are relatively fine. And I believe (and maybe we agree) that EAs should still verify these things in sketchy looking situations (including the purchase of Wyntham Abbey).
But in the case of "c) genuine disagreements about which actions are worth doing", it's possible we disagree. I feel like definitionally this means we don't believe other EAs are behaving well or representing our movement. In other words, "genuine disagreement about which actions are worth doing" sometimes is good cause to trust other people less.
I think you have valid reason to "distrust" EAs if you strongly disagree with the reasoning for the purchase of Wytham Abbey or for investing a lot in community building or for promoting longtermism. I strongly disagree with flat-earthers, and I would not "trust" a community based on evidence/reasoning that has a lot of flat-earthers.
I think at the end of the day, this discussion depends on your definition of "trust". It probably comes down to vibes. And it sounds like you're saying "even if you strongly disagree with someone, keep the positive vibes", and what I'm saying is, "sometimes it's okay to have negative vibes when you strongly disagree with someone."
I appreciate the post, particularly because I have been slowly updating towards the low-trust side of things. I have a few points I'd like to raise.
If your point is that we shouldn't defer to people's opinions without fully understanding their arguments and we should verify people are doing good/effective work but we should believe they're acting in good faith... I think I maybe agree? I'm still not sure though what "believing people are acting in good faith" does and doesn't include.
Hey Jeroen! I personally would love to see the argument for your idea that CEA should publicly defend expenses over $500k.
I can imagine that the disagree votes can be pretty encouraging, but consider the 'overall karma' was positive, I think people (including myself) would be interested in seeing your reasoning - even if they (initially) disagree.
When I read your initial comment, my thoughts were "Yes! Wait, actually no. Maybe? What would be the difficulties?". So I'd love to see a post elaborating on the ideas you've already thought up.
What systems/solutions currently exist for "dealing with" misconduct, harassment, or assault after it happens?
What systems should exist?
It seems plausible to me that a well-designed system would be able to effectively deal with the kinds of issues the OP talks about and things like financial misconduct.
But I feel like there are a few challenges:
Welcome to the EA Forum! I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and using this forum to engage with the EA community.
I'll use my own number system separate from yours so it doesn't get too confusing if you want to respond.
1. To summarize my personal thoughts, it's plausible that people should return unspent money (I'm mostly unsure but lean towards disagree). But if what you're saying is that people should return FTX Future Fund money that they've spent (and therefore go into personal debt), I disagree.
2. Regarding your #5, could you give examples of people giving "zero empathy for the individuals who put money/crypto on the FTX exchange and then were criminally defrauded by FTX"? And could you give examples of "Those people do not seem to count to the EA community"? I feel like most posts I've read about this have mentioned people feeling terrible about the effects on innocent people who lost money to FTX. I agree that the harm suffered by them is far greater than any harm to the EA community.
For some examples off the top of my head, there's the Future Fund team's post ("Our hearts go out to the thousands of FTX customers whose finances may have been jeopardized or destroyed."), Michel's post ("people's lives got ruined..."), Will's post ("... that may cost many thousands of people their savings..."), evhub's post ("People's life savings and careers..."), Rob Wiblin's post ("Most importantly FTX's depositors... may lose savings they and their families were relying on..."), and Rethink Priorities' Leadership Statement ("many customers are unable to retrieve funds held by FTX").
3. It would help if you could spell out your exact logic here. The next few questions are sub-questions/specifics I fail to understand. Feel free to answer them specifically or just spell out your logic cohesively if you think that would answer all my questions.
3a. I (and every EA I'm aware of) agree that depositors in FTX who've lost their money are victims here. If FTX Future Fund recipients paid back all their money (including spent money), most would be in financial problems and be victims as well. What good would that do? And why should the recipients pay back the money and not the organizations that they paid their money to?
3a. How does this apply to money that had been spent before the FTX news came out? Many individuals or organizations would need to pay back thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars that they don't have. FTX grantees who would face financial ruin as a result would also be victims here.
3c. Would you then agree that all organizations and celebrities that were paid by FTX should pay back whatever money they got? Including sponsorships like the Miami Heat, TSM (the e-sports team), and Stephen Curry? And the electrical company and janitors in the Bahamas paid by FTX? And other employees of FTX (uninvolved and unaware of the scandal) who received a salary?
3d. If your answer to 3c is that some parties shouldn't have to pay back money, then why? I really encourage you to think about why this should apply to the people and organizations who used or are using the money they received to fund charitable causes. Why is the financial burden on them?
3e. Is your logic affected by how the amount of money FTX grantees received compares to the amount of money owed to depositors? By my best findings, it seems like over $8 billion is owed back (New York Times, "The run on FTX..."), and the FTX Foundation gave away $140 million (New York Times, "as recently as last month..."). $140 mil divided by $8 bil is just under 2%. If all that $140 million is given back, then 98% of money owed will be remaining. The vast majority of depositors will still be financial affected, and now suddenly hundreds (if not more) of recipients of FTX Foundation grants will be financially affected.
Lorenzo, Is your comment about Emre Kaplan's comment or Daedalus?
If Emre Kaplan, I figure it's okay if there are very very few such "strong emotions, low 'substance'" type comments, which I believe is the case.
If Daedalus, I maybe agree. But is "True" that much different from comments that are like "+1" and then just a couple words of justification*? (A potential answer is "yes, because comments that are like '+1 and then a couple words of justification' are meaningfully harder to replicate/spam than "True" and less likely to slowly erode discussion norms.")
*Edit: it appears I do have one comment I've made myself that's just "+1" without any further justification haha. So maybe if "True" is not good, then maybe clearer discussion norms are required. I did a skim of (what I believe are) the Forum discussion norms and it does not appear to me that comments like "True" or "+1" are addressed by anything in the "Strong discussion norms" or "Softer discussion norms and tips" sections.
Hi Miguel, I broadly agree with AbigailT's comment. Could you expand why you think this is a bad thing? From my perspective, it just seems like he put 2 people in touch, and that Elon's purchase of Twitter was not immoral.
By the way, sorry you got downvoted so much. I suspect it's because your comment was (1) strong/accusatory, (2) didn't have justification, (3) and not obviously true.
Thanks Michael! Implemented.