{"items": [{"author": "Bernadette", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805643731382", "anchor": "fb-805643731382", "service": "fb", "text": "Thanks for sharing that. Tangentially, I feel a bit queasy about seeing the drowning child argument being invoked to justify this. I will try to unpick why later.", "timestamp": "1471349657"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805643731382&reply_comment_id=805669345052", "anchor": "fb-805643731382_805669345052", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Me, on reading the relevant quote from the post:
*closes eyes*
\"Did I seriously just read that?\"
*Takes a breath
*Relaxes shoulders*
*Keeps reading*", "timestamp": "1471362396"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805643731382&reply_comment_id=805673761202", "anchor": "fb-805643731382_805673761202", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Yes, I cringed so hard at that. I think it's the confusing use of the world value- Singer's point is that all lives are worth saving, not that everyone is equally able to contribute to saving lives.", "timestamp": "1471364108"}, {"author": "Bernadette", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805643731382&reply_comment_id=805702698212", "anchor": "fb-805643731382_805702698212", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I've had some time to think about this reaction a bit more, and - as well as the points Ben and Elizabeth make - the use of the term is emotionally manipulative and dishonest.
In Singer's original essay, he used the stark example of a dying child to draw his readers' attention to the imminent peril of millions of other children, and our continued blindness to the fact we could prevent their suffering. It's confronting when you engage with it.
In Gleb's responses to Jeff, he uses the phase to justify his marketing practices, implicitly comparing the people who might like his articles to the child dying of literal famine.
This is a pretty clear example of the tone-deafness and misunderstanding I have frequently observed in what I've encountered of Gleb's work, and I join others in imploring him to find a lower stakes arena in which to improve his communication.
(edited to add: while I believe everything I wrote above, the tone and level of criticism in this discussion as a whole got a lot more intense than it was when I wrote this. In the light of that, I regret my tone here, as I was probably contributing to Gleb's distress. I'm sorry. I would like to add that I only intended to comment on the effect of Gleb's writing, not his intentions or character.)", "timestamp": "1471377209"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805643731382&reply_comment_id=805705128342", "anchor": "fb-805643731382_805705128342", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Bernadette, I'm concerned that you are ascribing a negative light to the organization motivations as if this was the first time we used this framework, and just for rhetorical purposes. The fact is that Singer's essay helped inspire this approach from early onward in the development of our approach to marketing, as we perceived it important to spread these ideas around the world so that all people can benefit from them. The fact that Singer's essay helped inspire this approach is just the nature of the matter, not a rhetorical device. This essay is very dear to me, and I strongly resent being accused of using it simply for rhetorical purposes.", "timestamp": "1471378267"}, {"author": "Bernadette", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805643731382&reply_comment_id=805705452692", "anchor": "fb-805643731382_805705452692", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Then I suggest you don't invoke dying children to justify marketing techniques. I'm sorry your feelings are hurt, but that is my assessment of what you did here.
People can use things dear to them for poor reasons.", "timestamp": "1471378382"}, {"author": "Carrick", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805643731382&reply_comment_id=805815442272", "anchor": "fb-805643731382_805815442272", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb Maybe you can update on this without agreeing with it or understanding it? Since the goal is communication, and spreading EA, then you are getting valuable empirical feedback that your messaging is not landing how you meant it to. I imagine lots of advertisers come up with ideas which make great sense to them, and sound brilliant and effective, but when they test them out on a focus group, they find that they receive a negative response. The wise response then is not to try to \"argue with the audience\" but to update on it.", "timestamp": "1471439395"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805643731382&reply_comment_id=805890955942", "anchor": "fb-805643731382_805890955942", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Good point, I will update on how I communicate about the reason behind our marketing strategies, Carrick!", "timestamp": "1471476541"}, {"author": "Kate", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805644305232", "anchor": "fb-805644305232", "service": "fb", "text": "Thanks for this! I've been very, very frustrated with their social media presence, and this explains some things that weren't lining up.", "timestamp": "1471350199"}, {"author": "Rachel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805645742352", "anchor": "fb-805645742352", "service": "fb", "text": "Weird. I hadn't heard of them, but sure does sound sketchy. I'm also (as a professional researcher!) totally over the reification of \"research-based\" anything. Research can be found or made to say anything we want it to, especially for money. Also this organization certainly doesn't look like a non-profit to me, and does look like someone who wants money to rip off the pop psychology/self-help section at the bookstore and spout it back to people.", "timestamp": "1471351412"}, {"author": "Neela", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805645802232", "anchor": "fb-805645802232", "service": "fb", "text": "Thanks very much for this and a reminder to any of us managing effective altruism pages to check where likes are coming from.", "timestamp": "1471351471"}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805647049732", "anchor": "fb-805647049732", "service": "fb", "text": "Hopefully this isn't the only reason, but a good one nonetheless.", "timestamp": "1471352073"}, {"author": "Brendan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805650802212", "anchor": "fb-805650802212", "service": "fb", "text": "I'm curious, is there anything that Gleb or Intentional Insights could do that would change your mind?
My stake in it is that I think the kind of work they are doing is possibly quite valuable, I don't know how to assess it, and I have agreed to volunteer for them a bit (and nobody is paying me :)). In others' articulated opinions, is Intentional Insights worth any of my time and consideration going forward? If it weren't for the feeling that they are being sneaky, and if they reformed to address these concerns (i.e. appear trustworthy), would you think that the group has the potential to uniquely contribute to good?
I hope that the conversation raised here can be continued both kindly and critically - it may determine Intentional Insight's fate, so let's do that in the service of arriving at the best possible world.", "timestamp": "1471352850"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805657982822", "anchor": "fb-805657982822", "service": "fb", "text": "Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Regarding your specific claims, I have always been clear that we at InIn have some volunteers from developing countries who serve as part-time contractors. In the best tradition of nonprofits, we paid volunteers to do some additional work for us. I don\u2019t regret this decision at all, and am happy they do so. Sure, they are more likely to click \u201clike\u201d on our posts as a result. So are non-paid volunteers like Brendan. However, a handful of contractors do not result in 500 \u201clikes\u201d on a post \u2013 this is a result of the quality of the post itself.
I want to raise a point that is a broader concern for me. You stated in your post that the reason you were not interested in funding Intentional Insights is the conversation you and I had in the LW comments on May 16. However, I have an email from you on May 15 indicating that you were not only not interested in funding Intentional Insights, but that you believe that my/InIn\u2019s involvement with the EA movement has been harmful and that you would rather that I do not engage with the EA movement further. I indicated to you in my response that I am passionate about EA and will not move on, but that I am eager to hear any thoughts you had about how I can improve. You did not reply. Here is a screenshot of the conversation: http://imgur.com/a/dr4b8
The next day, May 16, you started the conversation on LW: http://lesswrong.com/.../the_valentines_day_gift.../dagy
From this timeline, it seems that you made the decision to not fund InIn already before the conversation you had on LW with me, and that the conversation did not have anything to do with your decision to not fund InIn. Your comments, based on this timeline, seem to misrepresent your actual decision-making process.
In fact, it appears that the conversation you had may have been deliberately intended to paint InIn in a negative light, as opposed to find out the truth of the matter, perhaps based on your stated belief that you think InIn\u2019s engagement in the EA movement has been harmful.
However, there may be some other explanation for this series of events. I would be happy to learn more about your perspective, and update my beliefs. I would also be eager to know your thoughts about how InIn can improve its engagement with the EA movement. I value all feedback, and especially from those who are more critical of the organization, since such feedback helps orient toward improvement.", "timestamp": "1471356332"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805657982822&reply_comment_id=805661021732", "anchor": "fb-805657982822_805661021732", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"You stated in your post that the reason you were not interested in funding Intentional Insights is the conversation you and I had in the LW comments on May 16.\"
Sorry, you're right, I had misremembered the timeline. When you wrote asking for funding I had negative views on you/InIn from seeing your posts and reading your discussions in, for example, the comments on http://lesswrong.com/lw/mze/marketing_rationality/ . Part of my view at that point was thinking you had been paying for likes, but I hadn't raised that concern with you yet. Your funding request prompted me to start the paid likes discussion with you on LW.
\"In fact, it appears that the conversation you had may have been deliberately intended to paint InIn in a negative light, as opposed to find out the truth of the matter\"
In that conversation I was interested primarily in understanding how you/InIn thought about these issues. I did choose to talk to you about this in public, though, because I thought it was likely your explanation would be something others would want to see.
\"I am eager to hear any thoughts you had about how I can improve. You did not reply.\"
I continue to think it would be best for EA if you moved on. If I had other suggestions I would give them.", "timestamp": "1471358376"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805657982822&reply_comment_id=805661605562", "anchor": "fb-805657982822_805661605562", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Thanks for your response. I hope in the future if you choose to criticize an individual or organization publicly, you will pay careful attention to all aspects of the events at hand, such as the timeline, so as to avoid a perception of being deceptive and untrustworthy. I think you do a lot of good for EA, even though you and I clearly disagree on InIn\u2019s work and impact :-)", "timestamp": "1471358791"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805657982822&reply_comment_id=805666311132", "anchor": "fb-805657982822_805666311132", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb's comments about Jeff risking a \"perception of being deceptive and untrustworthy\" irk me, because they seem designed to create such a perception where it wouldn't otherwise exist. If you're in an essentially person-against-person dispute in a public forum, speaking of how the audience might negatively perceive your opponent just seems really squicky to me. From reviewing the timeline of events, I have no increase in my perception of Jeff as deceptive or untrustworthy, and my base rate was thinking of him as quite trustworthy.", "timestamp": "1471360628"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805657982822&reply_comment_id=805666700352", "anchor": "fb-805657982822_805666700352", "service": "fb", "text": "→ My goal was to close up that line of discussion and share my thoughts about future optimization, as I believe Jeff does good work for the EA movement, even though he does not support my work. I'll keep in mind to avoid stating my specific concerns in the future in this sort of exchange. Thanks for that feedback!", "timestamp": "1471360951"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805657982822&reply_comment_id=805677548612", "anchor": "fb-805657982822_805677548612", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"I'll keep in mind to avoid stating my specific concerns in the future in this sort of exchange.\"
I don't think that's a good thing to take away from this exchange. Stating specific concerns is generally a pretty helpful thing to do! Specificity helps focus the discussion on where it can make progress. For example, your raising the point that my post claimed a 5/16 conversation convinced me of something I apparently already believed when I wrote a 5/15 email was helpful. It brought up an error in the post (which I've now revised it to fix) and because it gave me a chance to clarify the timeline. Your describing what I should have done differently I agree with, and I wish I had reviewed our emails before I wrote this post to refresh my memory. But your comment would have been much better if it had ended at \"such as the timeline\".", "timestamp": "1471365006"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805657982822&reply_comment_id=805679275152", "anchor": "fb-805657982822_805679275152", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Makes sense, I'll update toward, while being specific overall, balancing that with not stating the potential negative impression that I was worried about.", "timestamp": "1471365489"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805659774232", "anchor": "fb-805659774232", "service": "fb", "text": "As already said in the LW discussion, given that definition of paid 1-2% of those 500 likes seem to be paid.
I don't think there's anything wrong with hiring people from third world countries to do something. InIn doesn't employ 500 people.", "timestamp": "1471357362"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805659774232&reply_comment_id=805661690392", "anchor": "fb-805659774232_805661690392", "service": "fb", "text": "→ For the 500 likes on the TLYCS blog post it's hard to tell anything, since FB won't tell you who liked a blog post.
For posts on https://www.facebook.com/intentionalinsights/ though, skip the sticky post at the top and look through the rest. There are consistently a small number of people liking the posts, people that it sounds like are paid InIn volunteers.", "timestamp": "1471358850"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805659774232&reply_comment_id=805663431902", "anchor": "fb-805659774232_805663431902", "service": "fb", "text": "→ There are posts with a small amount of likes besides the sticked post but there are also posts with hundreds of likes and where you can see the list.
Let's say Gleb would give you access to the InIn Google Analytics data. Could you imagine a scenario where the analytics data would convince you that Gleb has an audience?", "timestamp": "1471359741"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805659774232&reply_comment_id=805665762232", "anchor": "fb-805659774232_805665762232", "service": "fb", "text": "→ For full transparency here's a screenshot of last month's Google Analytics data for Intentional Insights per Christian's suggestion: http://imgur.com/a/7AmAG As you can see, after the US the next 3 top countries are in Southeast Asia - we're quite popular there. We're event more popular there on our FB page, because of our cost-effective approach to marketing as described in the LW comments, here's the screenshot of that: http://imgur.com/a/EQpme", "timestamp": "1471360314"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805659774232&reply_comment_id=805666071612", "anchor": "fb-805659774232_805666071612", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb Tactically it would have been smarter if you would have first have waited for Jeff Kaufman to commit to taking Google Analytics data as evidence before releasing the data, but I'm also fine with simply having the data released.", "timestamp": "1471360562"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805659774232&reply_comment_id=805667024702", "anchor": "fb-805659774232_805667024702", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Christian good point - I'm not as tactically savvy as I could be and still have much to learn. I am simply orienting toward maximum transparency since that's a concern that Jeff Kaufman expressed and other folks did as well.", "timestamp": "1471361050"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805659774232&reply_comment_id=805689434792", "anchor": "fb-805659774232_805689434792", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"Could you imagine a scenario where the analytics data would convince you that Gleb has an audience?\"
I'm actually more worried that Gleb has an audience than that he doesn't! I think the way he's spreading these core EA concepts, by pairing them with bad stock photos, cranking out content, and talking like someone trying to sell you something, does more harm the more people see it.", "timestamp": "1471370694"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805659774232&reply_comment_id=805690263132", "anchor": "fb-805659774232_805690263132", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff Kaufman, it would have been awesome if you had shared that this is at the basis of your concern, since from your words it seems to be what is most bothering you. However, I don't want to make assumptions without checking in, so please do let me know if what is most bothering you is the prospect that InIn will succeed in spreading ideas about effective giving through using its current methods.", "timestamp": "1471371048"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805659774232&reply_comment_id=805694559522", "anchor": "fb-805659774232_805694559522", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"it would have been awesome if you had shared that this is at the basis of your concern\"
Yes, a post like that would have been better. What happened was I was having a lot of trouble putting my concerns into words, or even describing what bothered me about our discussion back in May. I actually originally wrote most of this post in maybe June, and then had been sitting on a draft of it hoping to come back and give a clearer argument for what I thought the problem was. EAG prompted me to just get it out in its current form, point more people at the conversation, and see where things went.
\"the prospect that InIn will succeed in spreading ideas about effective giving through using its current methods\"
That's not exactly it. Exposing people to these ideas is potentially positive or negative; what matters is how they respond. Do they find it resonating with them or do the recoil etc.", "timestamp": "1471373414"}, {"author": "Howie", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805659774232&reply_comment_id=806105481032", "anchor": "fb-805659774232_806105481032", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"yes a post like that would have been better\"
-i just wanted to point that most people i know would have been defensive here and I'm very impressed that you were not.", "timestamp": "1471583594"}, {"author": "Brendan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752", "anchor": "fb-805661510752", "service": "fb", "text": "I will clarify that I really have no vested interest here - I had not realized the extent to which the EA community is skeptical about InIn and will have to seriously reconsider the reasons to be at all involved or not given this new light.
I became interested in the group because a) I wanted to become involved remotely with an EA organization where I could have a meaningful marginal impact, b) I'm interested in both effective altruism and mental health, and c) I do think that EA could benefit from more effective marketing. Intentional Insights may or may not be the way to act on a,b,&c, but it seemed like a low-cost gamble with some good opportunities to learn, and it seemed like it was doing more good than harm. That said, I find myself pretty neutral in the current argument and seek guidance as to how to structure my time going forward.
I haven't given much time to the group besides that question to the Facebook group (which was as much for me) and providing comments on an article that they hope to publish on the EA Forum, after a single (long) conversation with Gleb. Any articles I liked, I actually liked. I agree that others I've read may not be the best for advancing EA goals. I had no reason to distrust the organization's integrity, or Gleb's involvement with EA, before today. Jeff's email raises eyebrows, and I'd want to know more about his personal concerns with Gleb's impact on EA, but I also recognize the complexity of sharing what may be unkind reflections in a public forum. I do wish more of this came up after I posted to the EA fb group seeking insight as to whether I should donate to them about a month ago. I suppose I should have done a bit more research on the group myself.
Giving Gleb the benefit of the doubt, that he truly intends to optimally contribute to the EA effort, or in a general case, how could EA best structure the feedback that in fact, the specific efforts of folks who identify with EA are counterproductive? And when might an EA know that their impression of what's best reasonably deviates from the consensus?", "timestamp": "1471358718"}, {"author": "Brendan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=805662568632", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_805662568632", "service": "fb", "text": "→ And, posting to the EA group about whether to donate to InIn was my idea, in order to gain insight on how other EAs would think about supporting them, because I was skeptical about but open to donating after I spoke with Gleb...", "timestamp": "1471359199"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=805662728312", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_805662728312", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Brendan, a FB discussion in response to a blog post critical of InIn - a blog post whose author acknowledged publicly that he misremembered the timeline and thus did not accurately portray his motivations for not supporting InIn - may not be the best venue to determine the EA community's attitude about Intentional Insights :-) If you want to poll the community, you're better off making an independent post in a neutral venue, such as the EA FB group or the .impact FB group, and having a discussion there. That way, you wouldn't have anchoring bias to deal with.", "timestamp": "1471359245"}, {"author": "Brendan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=805663112542", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_805663112542", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Certainly worth doing - I do happen to walk into this conversation trusting Jeff a fair bit, but I'm happy to be open and learn more. I happen to have a lot on my plate at the moment and have been distracted a bit too long at the moment, but I'll surely be following up after this busy week has passed.", "timestamp": "1471359545"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=805663516732", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_805663516732", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I think the quality of work that Gleb is doing has improved. In general Gleb is quite open to accepting feedback.
When it comes to reviewing articles that Gleb writes prior to their publication, I that might be useful even if you don't think donating to InIn is worthwhile. Gleb writes articles that reach a wide audience and reviewing those in a way that makes sure that the article has a positive impact. If you believe that Gleb circulates a draft for an article that would have negative effects for EA than tell him that you think that specific article shouldn't be published and why you think so.
That said it's worth noting that the target audience of a lot of InIn content is people who this community generally considers as low status. Nigerian atheists being one example. InIn doesn't try to reach an intellectually sophisticated audience with most of it's content.", "timestamp": "1471359791"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=805663950862", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_805663950862", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Brendan I also like a lot of what Jeff Kaufman has done, and wish he would clarify what his concerns about InIn are. I already publicly stated that we have a few volunteers who are also part-time contractors, but it seems his concerns are something beyond that. Oh well. I support his work for the EA movement, and will agree to disagree on the matter of InIn with him.", "timestamp": "1471359832"}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=805667633482", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_805667633482", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Brendan, if you want to become more involved with an EA org, perhaps you could ask Effective Altruism Outreach or one of the other orgs under the Centre for Effective Altruism if they have any volunteer work available.", "timestamp": "1471361614"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=805672254222", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_805672254222", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb- \"a blog post whose author acknowledged publicly that he misremembered the timeline and thus did not accurately portray his motivations for not supporting InIn\"
I find this to be a much smaller deal than the paying for social media presence and especially your dancing around around that fact. \"Person decides a thing, gets even stronger confirmation that that was correct decision, updates pointer to new primary reason without maintaining strict memory of the timeline\" is very understandable, and in many cases isn't even a mistake.
\"Yes we pay them to like our page but they're not paid likes\" makes me feel like I can't trust simple answers from you. The amount of work Jeff had to do to get you to explain what you actually do (and I'm still not satisfied with the answer) makes me extremely pessimistic that I could even learn what you do, much less that it would be something I was okay with.", "timestamp": "1471363817"}, {"author": "Tomer", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=805676705302", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_805676705302", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb: \"a blog post whose author acknowledged publicly that he misremembered the timeline...\" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqQD4dzVkwk", "timestamp": "1471364783"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=805677014682", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_805677014682", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Elizabeth, I guess the situation was not explained clearly enough in the shortened version of the LessWrong comments posted in the blog. You can check out the longer version, but here\u2019s the nutshell:
1) Jeff saw that a blog post of ours for TLYCS got 500 likes, which is much higher than a typical blog post gets. He suggested that we used paid likes to get them, which is a technical term for paying a whole bunch of people from venues like Mechanical Turk and others to \u201clike\u201d the post or your page. More on that here if you\u2019re curious: http://blog.wishpond.com/.../should-you-buy-facebook-likes
2) I responded that we do not do paid likes, as that is contrary to our mission.
3) He asked about some volunteers and part-time contracts from developing countries who are part of the InIn team, and explained that what he meant was not the technical term of getting a whole bunch of people to like the posts, but if there were people who were paid by InIn who liked the posts.
4) In response, I said yes, sure, there are a handful of people who are volunteers and part-time contracts who do so. They might have \u201cliked\u201d the posts regardless, because they are passionate about the content, but being paid increases the likelihood of them liking the post, naturally. Regardless, they comprise a tiny fraction of the 500 likes.
Does that nutshell clarify things sufficiently? Let me know if there\u2019s anything I missed.", "timestamp": "1471364872"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=805682613462", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_805682613462", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"I guess the situation was not explained clearly enough in the shortened version of the LessWrong comments posted in the blog. \" This is not the problem. I already understood everything you laid out here. The problem is that people disagree with your practice and/or feel you are obscuring it in a misleading way.", "timestamp": "1471366741"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=805693631382", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_805693631382", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I hope I clarified the practice sufficiently in the latter comments on this discussion, about contractors not having it as part of their job duties to click \"like\" on FB and doing it out of enthusiasm for the organization and its mission, and also to help the posts get more views. Oh, and Tomer, reading over what I wrote, you're right, I should not have stated that in quite the way I did - it came off as aggressive. I take that back and thanks for calling me out on it.", "timestamp": "1471372726"}, {"author": "Tomer", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=805731999492", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_805731999492", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Sorry Gleb., \"paid likes\" is not a technical term. The two words have their dictionary meaning. Unless these contractors are actually writing detailed articles or doing some kind of research for you, you are in fact paying for likes and the fact you know them on a personal level does not change that. And what is this absurdity about them being 2/3 volunteer 1/3 paid? Seems like more obfuscation to me.", "timestamp": "1471389658"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=805737348772", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_805737348772", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb Do you advertise your posts? Incentives are such that FB advertising will get most of its response from click bots. This is *definitely* not the same as paid likes, it is essentially FB cheating advertisers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag&feature=youtu.be", "timestamp": "1471391828"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=805738511442", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_805738511442", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"what is this absurdity about them being 2/3 volunteer 1/3 paid?\"
This could be a way of getting around ODesk's minimum wage requirements.", "timestamp": "1471392547"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=806010840692", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_806010840692", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff Kaufman just in case you didn't see this comment, let me give an example of a volunteer/contractor. John Chavez is one of the biggest supporters of the organization, as well as a part-time contractor. He volunteers for 45 hours a week, and gets paid for 15 hours a week at a rate of $300 per four weeks. Separately, he used to donate $50 per month to the organization, and about 3 months ago upped it to $100 a month. I'm so impressed with how much he's donating. Proportionally to income, he's the biggest donor to the organization after myself and my wife. He\u2019d be on the Board if he wasn\u2019t getting paid. He\u2019s super-enthusiastic about the positive impact of the organization, which is why he takes the time to leave enthusiastic comments. In no way is that part of his job description, since what he does is internal social media management and editing (see column on the very left): http://imgur.com/a/ewpNS", "timestamp": "1471542911"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=806012662042", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_806012662042", "service": "fb", "text": "→ He works 60 hours a week at a rate of $0.83/hr.
Others have shared the actual laws about employees/contractors \"volunteering\" at fundamentally similar job duties. Those laws exist for a good reason. Requiring someone to \"volunteer\" 75% of their hours is equivalent to paying them 4x less. Pressuring them to donate back some of their pay is equivalent to paying them that amount less. That pressure does not have to be intentional to be real. Power dynamics are often unintentional.", "timestamp": "1471543642"}, {"author": "Robin", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805661510752&reply_comment_id=806569441252", "anchor": "fb-805661510752_806569441252", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Sure but there are no minimum wage laws that apply to Americans hiring non-Americans as independent contractors (which, as far as I'm aware, by definition, non-US residents must be - employment doesn't cross national borders). It's completely normal for people in poorer countries to have low wages. Were your clothes produced abroad? Probably - and that probably means they were produced by people on relatively low wages. That's globalisation.", "timestamp": "1471819309"}, {"author": "Kate", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805663401962", "anchor": "fb-805663401962", "service": "fb", "text": "On a tangent, I'm confused about the 'part volunteer, part contractor' thing, and wonder if someone can help me sort this out.
If Sargin in the above blog post was an employee, InIn would be violating principle #6 and probably Principle #2 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (https://www.oneoc.org/.../volunteers-and-the-department...)
How does this work for contractors? The internet wasn't helping me sort this out, but I've wondered it for other orgs at different times as well.
[ETA: with all the other orgs it was more clear, so I'm wondering if someone can help here]", "timestamp": "1471359720"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805663401962&reply_comment_id=805670582572", "anchor": "fb-805663401962_805670582572", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Contractors are hired on a project/part-time basis, not as employees.", "timestamp": "1471363098"}, {"author": "Kate", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805663401962&reply_comment_id=805671186362", "anchor": "fb-805663401962_805671186362", "service": "fb", "text": "→ This is true [ETA, no it is not], and also not what I'm asking.
There are still regulations re: contractors, and re: what volunteers can and cannot do if they interact with a nonprofit in a different capacity. My question is how the rules are for US nonprofits who have people who both volunteer and contract.
ETA: Furthermore, this isn't the US definition of contractors (whether they are part-time/project focused). FLDSA is a little odd about it, but you can find yourself with contractors who should be treated as employees by accident.) https://www.legalzoom.com/.../employee-vs-independent...", "timestamp": "1471363304"}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805665941872", "anchor": "fb-805665941872", "service": "fb", "text": "Thanks for writing this, Jeff. Intentional Insights made me feel uneasy but I didn't realize it was this bad.", "timestamp": "1471360440"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805665941872&reply_comment_id=805667139472", "anchor": "fb-805665941872_805667139472", "service": "fb", "text": "→ After you have a chance to read through the comments, I'd be curious to know what you believe to be problematic.", "timestamp": "1471361123"}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805665941872&reply_comment_id=805667199352", "anchor": "fb-805665941872_805667199352", "service": "fb", "text": "→ If you can't already tell what about this conversation makes me not like Intentional Insights then there's probably nothing I can say that will make it clear to you.", "timestamp": "1471361173"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805665941872&reply_comment_id=805671874982", "anchor": "fb-805665941872_805671874982", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Try me :-)", "timestamp": "1471363619"}, {"author": "Owen", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805665941872&reply_comment_id=805704000602", "anchor": "fb-805665941872_805704000602", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb, I think one of the things going on here is that you are willing to learn (which is great), but you have bad intuitions about what is appropriate, which means there may be quite a lot to learn. You also don't appear to value the time of the people you're asking to give feedback appropriately, which means that the feedback interactions are not structured in a way which makes it worth their time.
I'd personally be happier if you stepped back from comms around EA, at least until you figure out how to do it without creating these reactions.", "timestamp": "1471377759"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805665941872&reply_comment_id=805712229112", "anchor": "fb-805665941872_805712229112", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Owen, given what Jeff Kaufman shared about his concerns in these discussions, the most important point for him and many others seems to be about the methods of content marketing that Intentional Insights adopts in communicating to a broad audience. I'm afraid that this is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of such communication, and will not be addressed through developing better intuitions. Separately, can you PM me about what you mean about valuing the time of people I asked to give feedback? I have has thousands of interactions around asking for feedback and have not heard that concern expressed before, and would be glad to learn more specifically what you mean.", "timestamp": "1471381026"}, {"author": "Owen", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805665941872&reply_comment_id=805713696172", "anchor": "fb-805665941872_805713696172", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb, let's ignore the object-level discussion, because I really think you need to fix the meta-level one of dealing with feedback first.
Rather than giving instant responses to feedback, or asking for more clarification if you don't understand, you can save some time for the people you're interacting with by slowing down and trying to work out what they might mean. Try coming up with a couple of different hypotheses, write out an explanation of one or two of these, and ask them \"Do you mean X?\" Work out how to respect their time and look for efficient-for-them ways to get the valuable information from them.
Asking me to move to PM with a vague request for more information seems like a very good example of getting this wrong. It moved me from feeling somewhat to very frustrated with you right now.", "timestamp": "1471381769"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805665941872&reply_comment_id=805719554432", "anchor": "fb-805665941872_805719554432", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Owen, that is very helpful, thank you!
First, apologies for my words resulting in frustration for you, I simply thought responding to feedback might distract from the other conversations going on here.
Second, thanks for encapsulating so clearly this strategic approach to feedback. I will have to think about how to internalize it, and adopt it in such situations. Appreciate it!", "timestamp": "1471384272"}, {"author": "Eliot", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805665941872&reply_comment_id=806282067152", "anchor": "fb-805665941872_806282067152", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I have tried so hard to give you feedback. Saying you have never heard it is indicative that you don't seem to listen. I don't know how to help.", "timestamp": "1471676890"}, {"author": "Kate", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805667174402", "anchor": "fb-805667174402", "service": "fb", "text": "Ah, also I poked around at Sargin's account (Sarginlove) at LW and it mostly seems to be conversing with \"Beatricesargin\" who *also* says they're a virtual assistant and also describes coming to LW via InIn.
And it seems possible that there are two people with the same name and same story (job description and track to LW) conversing primarily with each other on LW (I couldn't find out how common Sargin is as a name in the world), but I'm at least a little concerned that they're the same person with two usernames having conversations to each other.", "timestamp": "1471361156"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805667174402&reply_comment_id=805667458832", "anchor": "fb-805667174402_805667458832", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Anthony Sargin and Beatrice Sargin are a brother and sister. He started volunteering and then doing contracting work at InIn, and shared about InIn content with her. She started reading and really getting into it, then started volunteering, and then we gave her some contracting work too. She already had her own blog, so she had some quite solid writing skills, and does some of our social media editing and blog management. Anthony works on backend stuff, as he is in IT.", "timestamp": "1471361449"}, {"author": "Kate", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805667174402&reply_comment_id=805667543662", "anchor": "fb-805667174402_805667543662", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Then who is Paul Sargin/Sargin Paul (I'm sorry, I'm not sure if this is a surname or a convention of his facebook setup)", "timestamp": "1471361541"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805667174402&reply_comment_id=805670333072", "anchor": "fb-805667174402_805670333072", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Oh, Paul is Anthony's middle name. He likes to go by Sargin Paul in public forums. Sorry, forgot he likes to go by that, I should have referenced it when I responded to you. It gets confusing for me sometimes too, especially since his sister prefers to go by Beatrice Sargin. I don't think that's a cultural thing for Anthony (Paul) Sargin, just a personal preference.
For more context on them, they're both from Nigeria. Anthony is finishing up college, and he's apparently a great cook, from what his sister says. His sister is pretty shy and introverted in public contexts. She is currently finishing writing a novel. They\u2019re both struggling right now with the economic situation in Nigeria deteriorating. Sargin was telling me how he was standing in line for many hours recently trying to get gas for his car. I learn a lot about Nigerian everyday life from both of them.", "timestamp": "1471362921"}, {"author": "Alasdair", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372", "anchor": "fb-805668187372", "service": "fb", "text": "I agree with every criticism made - but think Jeff is far too charitable here - the fundamental problem is that Gleb lacks a sense of class, style or social norms - he has fundamentally no idea what is appropriate or inappropriate because he thinks that should be determined through a long argument about the specifics of one in the latest in a long line of cringeworthy misjudgements - when in reality just looking at the logo for his organisation is enough to tell you it is a horrible idea - if you think it is ok to act in this way then you just have not developed the political sense to understand why what you are doing is wrong - the fact people have to even try and raise these issues with him is an indication of complete unsuitability to run a public outreach organisation about EA ideas. Fortunately this is just a hobby project but certainly not one we should support. Sorry I know this is very harsh but if you are presenting yourself as the public face of the movement you do harm to everyone else when you make mistakes and everything I have ever seen from them is misjudged.", "timestamp": "1471361933"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=805671655422", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_805671655422", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Glad to get some feedback that\u2019s a bit more specific, thanks!
We tested the logo with our target market, and they liked it, which is what we as a marketing organization aim at. Believe me, if you were our target audience, the logo would be different :-)
More broadly, it\u2019s interesting that you perceive all of what InIn does as misjudgment. This is not the prevailing opinion among EA influencers or organization staff, many of whom collaborate with InIn on a variety of projects.
It\u2019s sad that you believe InIn is a hobby project. You can\u2019t be farther from the truth on that one.
Good luck to you in your own EA activism :-)", "timestamp": "1471363577"}, {"author": "Jim", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=805679764172", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_805679764172", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The issue with the logo is that it projects a very strong cultishness vibe. While you could interpret the \"Are you In?\" question as something innocent like \"are you on board with our ideas\" or \"are you insightful\", the more obvious interpretation is that it's asking \"Are you in our ingroup?\"
This is reinforced by the rest of the Facebook page. The next thing above the fold is \"Find your purpose/Using science\" and the next thing after that is a call for donations with 396 likes, which look fake to me because zero of them have even one mutual friend.", "timestamp": "1471365655"}, {"author": "Jim", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=805680133432", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_805680133432", "service": "fb", "text": "→ These and numerous other signals set off my scam-o-meter, and suggest that you are not at the level of skill that would be required to do outreach in a way that is net-positive. While I appreciate the intention, I think you need to first level up in an area that has lower stakes. Your current presentation leaves other EA organizations no choice but to actively distance themselves from you.", "timestamp": "1471365792"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=805680572552", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_805680572552", "service": "fb", "text": "→ What's especially worrying is that it seems to me like a major goal of Intentional Insights is to bring EA to a much larger group of people than have seen it before, though very light and necessarily unnuanced popularizations. That's already a project I'd be concerned about, but seeing it executed this poorly is alarming.", "timestamp": "1471365926"}, {"author": "Alasdair", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=805681680332", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_805681680332", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb I am hoping you are being sincere here, stopping Intentional insights and recognising it as a failure would be a huge act of courage and humility on your part - but I fear based on my prior interactions you might not be - it is hard to give more specific feedback than that - \"stop, please stop\" because that is the only good advice I can give you right now... First you have to stop firing back and hurting other EA's and the wider cause. I think you have a huge amount of passion and commitment for the idea of effective altruism but it is so frustrating to me to see you keep using it in this way which is so confused and self-centric", "timestamp": "1471366320"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=805684140402", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_805684140402", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jim, appreciate that specific feedback on the logo! We had a professional marketing designer create it, and tested it among a broad audience, which liked that version the most. However, I see your point about the possible misinterpretation of the \u201care you in\u201d quote. That\u2019s something I\u2019ll take back to our team, and give them some food for thought about redesigning the logo.
The call for donations is pinned to the top of the page and is thus liked by our FB page fans, most of whom are from developing countries: http://imgur.com/a/EQpme Not surprised you don\u2019t have shared FB friends with them.
I don\u2019t know what makes you believe that EA orgs are moving away from InIn. In fact, we\u2019re collaborating with more orgs recently than ever before.
Jeff Kaufman I believe there may be a misunderstanding going on about what InIn is doing. We\u2019re promoting effective giving, not Effective Altruism, to a broad audience: http://lesswrong.com/.../effective_giving_vs_effective.../", "timestamp": "1471367856"}, {"author": "Jim", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=805684245192", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_805684245192", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I didn't say that EA orgs *are* distancing themselves from InIn, I said that, if things continue on the current trajectory, they *must* distance themselves from it to protect themselves.", "timestamp": "1471367966"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=805687758152", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_805687758152", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Gleb: \"We\u2019re promoting effective giving, not Effective Altruism, to a broad audience\"
I'm glad you're pushing effective giving and not EA, but your writing is still going to be a lot of people's first exposure to these arguments and organizations. You're talking about GiveWell, AMF, effectiveness etc in a way that feels scammy and sales-y.", "timestamp": "1471369814"}, {"author": "Bernadette", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=805690332992", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_805690332992", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb has also specifically claimed he is using his project to bring EA and EA orgs to a wide audience http://effective-altruism.com/.../using_breaking_news.../", "timestamp": "1471371097"}, {"author": "Alasdair", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=805690387882", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_805690387882", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Arrrgh \"we are promoting effective giving not effective altruism\" - This kind of thing is the problem!!", "timestamp": "1471371116"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=805692304042", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_805692304042", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff Kaufman thanks for sharing more about the basis for what seem like your underlying concerns. I and other Intentional Insights volunteers are indeed using the organization to bring core concepts of cost-effectiveness and impact, and the organizations that embody these values - GiveWell, AMF, etc. - to a broad audience using content marketing methods. I understand that you and some other EAs have a negative perception of these methods. However, you are not the target audience. Research on effective communication informs our approach, and we are committed to using methods that are most effective in appealing to our target demographic groups. I understand that you and some others may not appreciate the content that results from these methods, but I and other Intentional Insights core participants strongly believe in orienting toward effective, research-driven communication methods. So we are deliberately avoiding talking about EA in the large majority of our pieces to avoid possible taint to that brand, while serving the cause through promulgating these ideas broadly. And believe me, we are not the only EA meta-charity using content marketing methods, we're just at the forefront of doing so, and in fact help a number of other orgs that are trying to target a broad audience become better at doing so.", "timestamp": "1471372068"}, {"author": "Malcolm", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=805786854562", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_805786854562", "service": "fb", "text": "→ ...why are you marketing effective giving to low-income countries?", "timestamp": "1471414120"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=805934847982", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_805934847982", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Malcolm I posted about this here: https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912...", "timestamp": "1471496330"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=805935611452", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_805935611452", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jim, about organizations distancing themselves: I've actually had feedback from staff at EA orgs who are glad that InIn can advance the range of what is currently being done among the EA orgs to help them market and fundraise effectively using research-based methods. For example, we published articles like the following:
http://effective-altruism.com/.../the_science_of.../
http://effective-altruism.com/.../newsjacking_for.../
http://effective-altruism.com/.../improving_the.../
And other EA orgs started taking and applying these ideas, for instance in this example of a piece I published for ACE:
https://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/.../do-you-love.../
I have heard from EA organization staff privately, both in response to this thread and earlier, expressing support for InIn taking the heat for pushing the range of what is being done. Well, I\u2019m glad to do so to help advance the cause of the EA movement.", "timestamp": "1471497089"}, {"author": "Arjun", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=805962437692", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_805962437692", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb, the link you posted in your response to Malcolm leads me back to this FB post itself i.e. Jeff's link and the ensuing comments.", "timestamp": "1471515367"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=805965037482", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_805965037482", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Arjun thanks - here is the relevant comment I made below in response to similar feedback, which is what I wanted to link for Malcolm: \"2) Many people were surprised that we target our content not only to wealthy countries, but globally, and that we have contractors who are not from wealthy countries.
2A) We made a choice to orient toward spreading the message of effective giving to all human beings, both because we see all people as equal and because the resource cost of reaching those in less wealthy countries is often much less than the cost of reaching people in developed countries, for example via the Google Adwords nonprofit grant. Our multinational cast of contractors helps ensure that these messages are appealing globally, not only in wealthy countries, but also among those middle-class demographics in less wealthy countries who own a computer and can easily access the internet, and have disposable wealth to give to charity. Thus, just over half of the hits to our website come from less wealthy countries. I think this gives Intentional Insights a big advantage in being global communicators, and do not intend to change this approach. Likewise, being an immigrant from the former USSR, I feel culturally comfortable with organizing a multinational, culturally diverse team from around the globe, including from lower income countries.\"", "timestamp": "1471518670"}, {"author": "Malcolm", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=806017776792", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_806017776792", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Sure, it's cheaper to get your message in front of them, but they don't have much money to effectively give, so the ROI is probably lower.
Although I just ran the numbers using GWWC's calculator, for Bangladesh and and Indonesia, and it seems like they're not quite as poor as I thought (average salary = top 35% of wealth and top ~10% of wealth, respectively).
What else... the World Giving Index survey reports that Indonesia is relatively charitable (45% of people have given to charity in the last year) whereas Bangladesh is not (12%). [https://docs.google.com/.../1rX3hVdrlNQR2zWWhehYn0jJ.../edit]
Both of the above datapoints suggest basically only targeting Indonesia if that's your strategy.
My intuitions here still say that this is likely to be less valuable than further outreach here, but at this point I'll recuse myself as biased because I strongly favour far-future / xrisk causes, which I suspect are highly unlikely to receive donations from people in low-income countries who've been referred by sources like InIn.", "timestamp": "1471545511"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=806019054232", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_806019054232", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Malcolm I specifically avoid taking about x-risk to a broad audience, that's a somewhat dangerous topic to introduce. Thanks for the tip about targeting - we have been doing a general targeting of Southeast Asia, and may reconsider to focus on more charitable countries like you suggested. Appreciate it!", "timestamp": "1471546430"}, {"author": "Mat\u012bss", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=806019987362", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_806019987362", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"We made a choice to orient toward spreading the message of effective giving to all human beings, both because we see all people as equal [..].\"
In terms of marketing strategy, this sounds like a pretty weird reason on its own:
a) If it's important for intrinsic reasons, why follow such an egalitarian principle that can cost you outreach ROI? Because it's not even mentioned anywhere on the InIn website.
b) If it's important for instrumental reasons, why didn't you just mention those (e.g., higher outreach ROI because X)? Because otherwise this seems very rhetorical, especially when many people have found some of your previous responses misleading.", "timestamp": "1471546844"}, {"author": "Malcolm", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=806022442442", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_806022442442", "service": "fb", "text": "→ It's great that Gleb updated on what I said, but it was literally 10 minutes of following his own reasoning, so my eyebrow is presently raised at why he wouldn't have thought through this in the first place. I'm feeling a sense of lack-of-model here, kind of like the point around inconsistency that Mat\u012bss raises.", "timestamp": "1471548411"}, {"author": "Malcolm", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=806032711862", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_806032711862", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Although I mean, one person's obvious next steps aren't another's, so maybe I did make a few leaps.", "timestamp": "1471550299"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805668187372&reply_comment_id=806037901462", "anchor": "fb-805668187372_806037901462", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Malcolm you give me too much credit :-) You've made an optimization that we haven't thought about before - we did not look at country by country giving, simply looked at the region, its cultural heritage of giving due to the background there, and decided to target it. This will help us refine our targeting - thanks!", "timestamp": "1471552818"}, {"author": "Manoli", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642", "anchor": "fb-805679030642", "service": "fb", "text": "Small but important tangent: the term \"third world country\" is outdated, confusing and somewhat offensive. Better to use a neutral term like developing country or low income country.", "timestamp": "1471365396"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=805679399902", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_805679399902", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Thanks! I probably should have written \"developing country\". But pretty much all the terms, including the ones you suggest, have people who dislike them: http://www.npr.org/.../if-you-shouldnt-call-it-the-third...", "timestamp": "1471365565"}, {"author": "Manoli", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=805679709282", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_805679709282", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Yeah true but at least they are in line with the terminology of agencies like the UN and World Bank.", "timestamp": "1471365644"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=805680053592", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_805680053592", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Looks like the World Bank has moved away from \"developing countries\": http://metro.co.uk/.../heres-why-you-shouldnt-use-the.../
https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/.../906519-world-bank... uses \"low-income economies\"", "timestamp": "1471365750"}, {"author": "Manoli", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=805680138422", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_805680138422", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Low income is the most precise", "timestamp": "1471365797"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=805681206282", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_805681206282", "service": "fb", "text": "→ And \"low income\" also matched what I cared about there. Specifically, that having likes mostly from people from low income countries is evidence for trading money for likes, since money goes farther in lower income countries.", "timestamp": "1471366062"}, {"author": "Linchuan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=805787672922", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_805787672922", "service": "fb", "text": "→ This can probably be phrased better, but:
Are there non-trivial numbers of actually poor people who care about phrasing like \"third world country\"? This sounds like a problem that Western intellectuals, and their co-conspirators in poorer countries, cook up, because they care more about terminology than the suffering of people they claim to care about.", "timestamp": "1471414774"}, {"author": "Linchuan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=805787722822", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_805787722822", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Some academic types would say to Jim and Paul, \"Why do you call your patients poor people? They don't call themselves poor people.\" Jim would reply: \"Okay, how about soon-dead people?\"
From:
http://brickandrope.blogspot.com/.../mountains-beyond...", "timestamp": "1471414898"}, {"author": "Manoli", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=805787857552", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_805787857552", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Linchuan you are making a very strong claim that I don't really understand. Why would caring about using a Cold War -era term that essentializes every country in the world as part of a US-USSR conflict narrative mean that you can't also care about poor people in those countries?", "timestamp": "1471415100"}, {"author": "Linchuan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=805787997272", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_805787997272", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I see a strong tendency for many groups to care about symbols (eg. language policing, dirty hands, identity politics, intelligent conversations) more than substance/consequences. I still cling to some hope that people involved in some issues I care about would not succumb to this, though perhaps I'm just being overly idealistic here.", "timestamp": "1471415364"}, {"author": "Linchuan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=805788037192", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_805788037192", "service": "fb", "text": "→ You are far from the most egregious offender in this respect, and I'm sorry for my wording above.", "timestamp": "1471415487"}, {"author": "Manoli", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=805788042182", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_805788042182", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The term \"third world country\" also has a very negative connotation in developed countries, which colors people's perceptions of people and problems in developing countries in ways that are very counter-productive to solving real problems (e.g. people in the US assuming all of Africa is a war-torn hellhole)", "timestamp": "1471415496"}, {"author": "Linchuan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=805788191882", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_805788191882", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Hmm...how would changing the wording from \"third world country\" to \"low income country\" help with combating this perception?", "timestamp": "1471415715"}, {"author": "Manoli", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=805790157942", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_805790157942", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Linchuan because \"third world\" is a historically fraught term with a lot of baggage, while low-income is relatively neutral. It's somewhat similar (though this is not a perfect analogy) to calling low-income neighborhoods \"ghettos\"; it creates a very negative perception of the community and its residents.", "timestamp": "1471417804"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=805807952282", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_805807952282", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Hmm, changing terms because of connotations they've picked up sounds euphemism-treadmill-like. \"Third world\" was also once a neutral term (not aligned with the US or Soviets), and I belive \"ghetto\" was a neutral matter of fact term once too.
Using the current term indicates respect and caring, because you're the kind of person who is aware enough to know what term to use. Linchuan is right that in practice we do see lots more people arguing about terms for groups than doing things to help them, but I don't know if people would do more to help if we stopped this arguing.", "timestamp": "1471434885"}, {"author": "Linchuan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=805954962672", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_805954962672", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I thought about this issue again, and while I still think my original point was roughly correct, I'm much less confident that I should have made it. This is because in a sense my comments were a special case of https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of.../
Ie, I got upset at language policing around poverty, but not at many other incidences of people not actually helping people. This seems inconsistent.", "timestamp": "1471502651"}, {"author": "Linchuan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=805955007582", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_805955007582", "service": "fb", "text": "→ On the other hand, part of me feels like there is still a principled case to be made that it's especially important for the groups that purport to care about suffering/human flourishing to be actively engaged in concern about the consequences, and it's *right* to be more worried about those groups.
So I don't know. On the meta-level I'm quite conflicted.", "timestamp": "1471502827"}, {"author": "Howie", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679030642&reply_comment_id=806106893202", "anchor": "fb-805679030642_806106893202", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Linchuan I think it's important that the issue was explicitly marked as a \"small but important tangent.\" I think this was a pretty good example showing it's possible to suggest the use of more accurate language that some folks find more respectful without doing so in a way that derails efforts at helping others.
In particular, I think the feedback was given in a way that was designed not to make Jeff feel bad and not to discourage people who don't know the PC lingo from getting involved.", "timestamp": "1471584120"}, {"author": "Alexander", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679819062", "anchor": "fb-805679819062", "service": "fb", "text": "This was brought to my attention a few months ago. My reaction was much the same as Michael'. There are some other relevant threads for anyone thinking the miscommunication above might be a one-off. The exchange between gjm and Gleb is pretty damning to me.
http://lesswrong.com/.../open_thread_march_21_march.../d6y7", "timestamp": "1471365678"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805679819062&reply_comment_id=805688007652", "anchor": "fb-805679819062_805688007652", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Alexander to be clear, I have and had no interest in promoting InIn content targeted for a broad audience on Less Wrong. Less Wrong is not the target audience for that sort of content. The majority of content I post on LessWrong nowadays is EA-themed content. I did try to get volunteers/part-time contractors engaged with LW, since they had an interest in increasing their rationality. It did not go over well, and I updated on that exchange, and asked people who were paid by InIn to avoid engaging with LessWrong. So I\u2019m confused by the point you make about us not updating when people express concern. But maybe I'm missing something.", "timestamp": "1471369988"}, {"author": "Jacy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522", "anchor": "fb-805680587522", "service": "fb", "text": "", "timestamp": "1471365928"}, {"author": "David", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805681510672", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805681510672", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Strongly agree.", "timestamp": "1471366220"}, {"author": "Jacy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805681615462", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805681615462", "service": "fb", "text": "→ ", "timestamp": "1471366275"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805681650392", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805681650392", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I don't want the outcome of this conversation to be Gleb deciding to change his dodgy policy around contractor-volunteers and fb likes. I want Gleb to stop participating in EA, or at least completely rethink how he's going about it. See the thread under Alasdair's comment above: http://www.jefftk.com/.../conversation-with-gleb-of...", "timestamp": "1471366298"}, {"author": "Jacy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805681869952", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805681869952", "service": "fb", "text": "→ ", "timestamp": "1471366447"}, {"author": "Alexander", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805681889912", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805681889912", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jacy: If this was the only case I would agree with you. Givewell made some similar-in-character mistakes very early on as well. But as far as I can tell it's just the tip of the iceberg.
Note that in the LessWrong threads people are directly asking Gleb to stop. He's responding, so he's seeing those requests. But I don't get the impression lessons are really being learned. At some point you have to go to a more public forum, and in this particular case Jeff beat me/Denise to it by not that much.", "timestamp": "1471366477"}, {"author": "Jacy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805682284122", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805682284122", "service": "fb", "text": "→ ", "timestamp": "1471366615"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805682553582", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805682553582", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Just to be clear, for people who are part-time contracors, clicking \"like\" on posts is not part of their job duties. They are quite aware of the importance of having likes for FB algorithms to show posts higher, and so some make sure to click like on every post. However, others don't, without any repercussions, as it's not part of their job duties.", "timestamp": "1471366699"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805683436812", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805683436812", "service": "fb", "text": "→ what are their other job duties?", "timestamp": "1471367436"}, {"author": "Gregory", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805684834012", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805684834012", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I am also intensely interested in what work product beyond liking stuff the contractors have done. Perhaps evidence of this, in the interests of transparency, would be even better.", "timestamp": "1471368372"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805686021632", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805686021632", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gosh, they do lots of stuff Elizabeth. They do video editing for our Youtube videos; they create images for our blogs; they do website management and maintenance; they find, schedule, edit, and post content on our 8 social media channels; they do Search Engine Optimization; they engage in managing newsletters; they do various forms of research; and other tasks. Their tasks do not involve clicking \"like\" on FB posts, they do that out of their appreciation for the content and because they know that \"likes\" benefit the organization. Gregory sure, here's a screenshot of what they do: http://imgur.com/a/wOdLV", "timestamp": "1471368640"}, {"author": "Elissa", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805690552552", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805690552552", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I found Jeff's post helpful but agree that the pile-on sucks.", "timestamp": "1471371253"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805785187902", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805785187902", "service": "fb", "text": "→ If this sort of behavior is normal for nonprofits then EAs should not support nonprofits that engage in normal behavior, as it appears deeply dishonest.", "timestamp": "1471413139"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805805811572", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805805811572", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I think there are actually quite a few behaviors that are common in the nonprofit world that EAs should avoid. For example, nonprofits often make efficacy claims based on very little data, or intentionally misleading presentation, like \"$50 can save a life!\" Or refusing to share data about how they operate for fear other nonprofits will copy them. Or taking fundraising approaches that don't increase what's given and mostly try to attract donors from competitors.
These aren't things I've seen EA aligned organizations doing, which is great! But they also illustrate that \"standard in the nonprofit world\" can include a lot of different things we shouldn't do.", "timestamp": "1471433993"}, {"author": "Elissa", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805812138892", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805812138892", "service": "fb", "text": "→ When I managed GWWC's facebook I would sometimes use my personal account to like links that I found interesting or positive, as did other GWWC volunteers and organizers. No one seemed to think this was inappropriate, although it wasn't every link every time. I can maybe see an argument that I shouldn't have, but \"deeply dishonest\" feels like quite a stretch, since my enthusiasm was perfectly sincere and what led me to volunteer in the first place. The difference between that and InIn's situation seems to be one of degree.", "timestamp": "1471437610"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805815347462", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805815347462", "service": "fb", "text": "→ One thing that I think underlies some of the discomfort that Ben and others feel that I haven't seen explicitly stated is the proportion of likes/comments that come from staffers/volunteers. If a GWWC post is liked by 40 independent people and 5 of them comment on it, and then a staffer likes it and bumps that to 41\u2026 this seems basically fine to me. If by contrast, an InIn post is liked by 10 people, all of whom are employed by InIn, and two of them comment something like \"Great post!\" \u2013 and this same pattern is repeated on the bulk of InIn's content \u2013 this seems deeply dishonest and unacceptable.", "timestamp": "1471439363"}, {"author": "Elissa", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805825182752", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805825182752", "service": "fb", "text": "→ what actually is the average number of likes coming from staff per post? I had in mind fewer than 10.", "timestamp": "1471446134"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805827857392", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805827857392", "service": "fb", "text": "→ It looks like the total number of likes on their posts usually range from 8-12, with occasional outliers that have 100+. I don't know which all people are staff, but Gleb has mentioned two people with the name Sargin and there is a person named Shyam on the trello board he shared, and those three people have liked the majority of the posts on the page. That puts a conservative lower bound of a quarter of the likes being from staff. There's also the issue of shares: Sargin Paul appears to share the exact same post as many as three times, causing Facebook to report \"3 shares\" when there has been zero organic sharing. I had to go back a dozen posts to find a share that wasn't someone I know to be affiliated with InIn, despite 75% of posts having at least one share. This highlights the proportion issue \u2013 without staff, all of these posts would have looked like they had zero shares, with staff they look like they have 1-3 shares each, and probably few people actually hover to see that it's the same one person doing all the sharing.", "timestamp": "1471447338"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805830566962", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805830566962", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Some other weird stuff regarding those occasional outliers. In one case, a post that was \"part 2\" of a two-part post received >300 likes, when part 1 had received the usual 10-with-however-many-being-staff. Plausible I guess, but weird. In another case, the exact same post was reposted on Aug 13, Aug 15, and Aug 16, with the first two receiving the usual ~10 and the last receiving 110. Again, totally plausible, but a bit weird. If there weren't other reasons for concern this probably wouldn't make me raise an eyebrow, but given everything else, I'm having a somewhat hard time trusting that these likes weren't purchased.
Edit: Thinking about why this seems sketchy, a few additional comments \u2013 none of these hundreds of people comment or share ever, and basically every post has either ~10 likes, ~100 likes, or between 300 and 500 likes. Really clear trimodal distribution. Maybe that's normal? Seems weird. (There is one outlier with 42 likes.) (Also maybe I'm just having some horns effect as mentioned elsewhere in the thread.)
Edit: I should stop but one more thing about the comparison to GWWC. I've scrolled back through the past several months of InIn's facebook page, and have seen many of the exact same posts reposted half a dozen times. The same people (give or take) have liked them every single time they've been posted. This is clearly not \"that was interesting, I personally genuinely like this post\".
Edit: Gah I can't stop, but wow: there's one post that James Richard shared to 500 different groups. There's no way he's not staff. And yes, he's one of the people who like every post, so we can bump the conservative estimate from above up to a third. Also I have a really hard time believing that Nyor Hoype and Candice Olivar aren't affiliated somehow, they're married and have both liked almost every post for months. That would bump it up to six staff likes, which is between half and three quarters of all likes depending on the post.", "timestamp": "1471448757"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=805934887902", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_805934887902", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nathan to be clear, we boost some posts and not others, depending on whether we think they would be a fit to a certain audience.", "timestamp": "1471496417"}, {"author": "Malcolm", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=806022552222", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_806022552222", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"Standard\" doesn't mean \"okay\". Lots of things with negative externalities are \"standard\" but very harmful\u2014various pollution or energy-use related things, to take one example. In environments that don't deliberately tax those negative externalities, it becomes hard to compete. (A recent example of such a tax coming into place is facebook trying to dramatically reduce clickbait headlines, which are a form of memetic pollution.)", "timestamp": "1471548477"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805680587522&reply_comment_id=806038490282", "anchor": "fb-805680587522_806038490282", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Malcolm, I hear you, and I asked people who are paid by InIn to not comment on our FB posts, even though it's standard.", "timestamp": "1471553236"}, {"author": "Jacy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805682847992", "anchor": "fb-805682847992", "service": "fb", "text": "", "timestamp": "1471366935"}, {"author": "Gregory", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805682847992&reply_comment_id=805685747182", "anchor": "fb-805682847992_805685747182", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The people 'piling on the criticism' may not take Gleb's assurance that he pays people for other stuff but they coincidentally shower likes on his content with unalloyed credulity.", "timestamp": "1471368563"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805682847992&reply_comment_id=805686365942", "anchor": "fb-805682847992_805686365942", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gregory sure, here's a screenshot of what they do: http://imgur.com/a/wOdLV Believe me. if I thought that other folks would not like them clicking \"like\" on InIn's content, I would have asked them to stop. It just wasn't a big deal to me. If they wanted to do so, I told them sure, go ahead, it's certainly beneficial for raising the viewership of the social media posts, although I asked them to not do it during times when they were being paid to do specific tasks. They instead did it during their volunteer time, which is a much more fuzzy and vague time where they do various more fun activities than the ones they're paid for :-) I have now gone and asked them to not click \"like\" on any posts on the Intentional Insights FB page or the Dr. Gleb FB page, or any FB groups besides the ones that InIn manages, however much they may appreciate the content. I did say they can keep clicking like on posts on my profile or in the groups that InIn manages. Note, they may occasionally forget to avoid clicking \"like\" at first, but they'll break out of that habit soon enough.", "timestamp": "1471368923"}, {"author": "Elissa", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805682847992&reply_comment_id=805690422812", "anchor": "fb-805682847992_805690422812", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Agreed that this is not as big a deal as it's being made to sound, and I entirely believe Gleb's account.", "timestamp": "1471371183"}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805682847992&reply_comment_id=805747194042", "anchor": "fb-805682847992_805747194042", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I don't get why people believe Gleb when he says the likes are coming from employees. The post on TLYCS had about 300 more likes than you'd expect--are we supposed to believe that Intentional Insights is employing *hundreds* of contractors?", "timestamp": "1471397548"}, {"author": "Jacy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805682847992&reply_comment_id=805747558312", "anchor": "fb-805682847992_805747558312", "service": "fb", "text": "→ ", "timestamp": "1471397735"}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805682847992&reply_comment_id=805752772862", "anchor": "fb-805682847992_805752772862", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jacy, it's discussed at the beginning of Jeff's post. But yes AFAIK there are just a few people who are liking everything Gleb writes.", "timestamp": "1471398011"}, {"author": "Jacy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805682847992&reply_comment_id=805752807792", "anchor": "fb-805682847992_805752807792", "service": "fb", "text": "→ ", "timestamp": "1471398073"}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805682847992&reply_comment_id=805753052302", "anchor": "fb-805682847992_805753052302", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb's post on TLYCS got an unusually large number of likes. It's possible that it could be for some other reason though, I was under the impression that he had many posts that got that many likes, but I went through the Intentional Insights Facebook page and didn't see many.", "timestamp": "1471398230"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805682847992&reply_comment_id=805916325102", "anchor": "fb-805682847992_805916325102", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Michael, I can't actually boost a post on the TLYCS FB page, it got likes on its own. You can see the media director for TLYCS describing the impact of my posts here: https://docs.google.com/.../1FnTWEU.../edit...", "timestamp": "1471487719"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805692169312", "anchor": "fb-805692169312", "service": "fb", "text": "Note for people saying this should have started with private conversations with Gleb: my understanding is lots of EAs have talked to Gleb privately already.", "timestamp": "1471371994"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805692169312&reply_comment_id=805693930782", "anchor": "fb-805692169312_805693930782", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Yup, and I and other InIn participants updated accordingly based on conversations with them :-) This is how we went from promoting Effective Altruism to promoting effective giving, for example. We also had a number of other updates based on these conversations. Just recently, based on talking to Claire, I updated toward being more concerned than I previously was about people talking about existential risk issues in unthoughtful ways.", "timestamp": "1471372949"}, {"author": "John", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805692169312&reply_comment_id=805903540722", "anchor": "fb-805692169312_805903540722", "service": "fb", "text": "→ What is the difference between effective altruism and effective giving?", "timestamp": "1471482685"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805692169312&reply_comment_id=805934922832", "anchor": "fb-805692169312_805934922832", "service": "fb", "text": "→ John: http://lesswrong.com/.../effective_giving_vs_effective.../", "timestamp": "1471496470"}, {"author": "Alexander", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805694514612", "anchor": "fb-805694514612", "service": "fb", "text": "Gleb, I'm going to reply to your reply here so it's more visible. I hope you (and Jeff) don't mind.
\" Alexander to be clear, I have and had no interest in promoting InIn content targeted for a broad audience on Less Wrong. Less Wrong is not the target audience for that sort of content.\"
When you're fundraising from the LW/EA community as you are in the process of doing, you have a direct interest in being seen and in being seen positively by that community. That's just a plain fact that applies to InIn, CEA, 80k, and just about every other EA charity out there.
If that interest gets channeled into doing the best work you possibly can, I obviously have no issue with it. You appear to have channeled that interest into being *seen as* doing the best work you possibly can, via having employees write effusive praise about you and InIn on a site that you know many of your potential future donors are reading.
\" It did not go over well, and I updated on that exchange, and asked people who were paid by InIn to avoid engaging with LessWrong. So I\u2019m confused by the point you make about us not updating when people express concern. But maybe I'm missing something.\"
Sure, that LW thread was all the way back in March; a relatively long time ago for a fast-growing non-profit. Your conversation with Jeff was in May however, and after the first conversation called you out I would have expected you to quickly clarify that yes, some of the likes to indeed come from InIn employees, and no, this isn't even close to all the likes. Not to wait for some to call you out on it (again).
More recently still, in late July, I noticed this pair* of posts in the EA facebook group. These were in the midst of a strong fundraising push from you around EAG. I notice two oddly-effusive comments by a John Chaves and two likes for his posts by a Nyor Hoype. John's posts reminded me of the original LW posts gjm criticised you over, so I search the EA FB group for him.
Every single one of John's posts is directly supporting you and your work, normally with contentless statements like 'Great article!'. This is over a 6 month period. He hasn't posted on a single thread not related to you. Nyor Hoype hasn't made any comments at all; unfortunately I can't search for likes.
So I'm going to ask directly: have John Chaves and Nyor Hoype received any money from Intentional Insights? If so, why are you still continuing to same self-promotion strategy you were explicitly told is not ok back in March?
*https://www.facebook.com/.../permalink/1111513228905033
https://www.facebook.com/groups/effective.altruists/permalink/1112120538844302/", "timestamp": "1471373388"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805694514612&reply_comment_id=805699005612", "anchor": "fb-805694514612_805699005612", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Alexander, happy to clarify.
1) I don\u2019t see the LW community as a substantial source of potential revenue. My goal was to get both volunteers and contractors who wanted to grow in their rationality skills engaged in the rationality community. If I had wanted to be deliberately deceptive, I would have asked them to be subtle about it, not use their real names, etc. I didn\u2019t, because I had no interest in hiding what was going on. I simply told them to experiment with engaging with LW and try to learn. As I said, it didn\u2019t go over well, so I asked them to cease.
2A) In response to your direct question, John Chavez is one of the biggest supporters of the organization, as well as a part-time contractor. He volunteers for 45 hours a week, and gets paid for 15 hours a week at a rate of $300 per four weeks. Separately, he used to donate $50 per month to the organization, and about 3 months ago upped it to $100 a month. I'm so impressed with how much he's donating. Proportionally to income, he's the biggest donor to the organization after myself and my wife. He\u2019d be on the Board if he wasn\u2019t getting paid. He\u2019s super-enthusiastic about the positive impact of the organization, which is why he takes the time to leave enthusiastic comments. In no way is that part of his job description, since what he does is internal social media management and editing (see column on the very left): http://imgur.com/a/ewpNS
2B) No idea about Nyor Hoype. Just a fan, I guess. And if he wasn\u2019t, I would have told you \u2013 there\u2019s no point in me sharing about John and not sharing about this person if I knew who this person is.
3) Now, why did John still post supportive words after May? Well, what I understood to be the concern raised by @Jeff in May was having 500 paid likes on a FB post. I told him we were doing no such thing. I fully acknowledged that we had some contractors who clicked \u201clike\u201d on our FB posts. This was not part of their job description, and they did so because they were enthusiastic about the content and wanted to help the organization\u2019s posts appear higher on social media. They did so during their volunteer time, since I would not want them to spend their work time on such a low-return task. Believe me. if I thought that other folks would not like them clicking \"like\" on InIn's content, I would have asked them to stop. It just wasn't a big deal to me. It wasn\u2019t something they wasted the organization\u2019s money on, and if they wanted to do it as part of their volunteering, sure, why not.
4) I have now gone and asked them to not click \"like\" on any posts on the Intentional Insights FB page or the Dr. Gleb FB page, or any FB groups besides the ones that InIn manages, however much they may appreciate the content. I did say they can keep clicking like on posts on my profile or in the groups that InIn manages. Note, they may occasionally forget to avoid clicking \"like\" at first, but they'll break out of that habit soon enough. More broadly, when I understand the nature of a concern, I update very quickly and gladly. This is especially the case in a matter I perceive as super-trivial to the organization's actual core mission and function. It really doesn't matter much whether John says a positive thing or not, it's more about what he enjoys and appreciates doing. So now I asked him and others to whom InIn pays money not to do it anymore except in the venues mentioned above.
I hope this addresses your concerns.", "timestamp": "1471375139"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805694514612&reply_comment_id=805701256102", "anchor": "fb-805694514612_805701256102", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb: I haven't followed any of what's happened over the past months, but just from this facebook thread, I would say that the real concern isn't whether you can update on very concrete specific feedback. You do seem to be very open and willing to take feedback, and to make changes to the exact behavior that is mentioned. That's admirable. What worries me is that I don't at all think you do \"understand the nature of the concerns\". I had this impression in your response to my comment elsewhere in the thread, and have it again here. In neither place did it seem like you realized why people were criticizing you and then decide to change your behavior based on a new understanding. The response I would have liked to see from you would have been something like: \"oh, wow, I totally didn't realize that this could be read that way, but now I get it, and of course I won't do that again.\" Instead your response reads more like: \"for some reason people don't like this specific thing I did, I'll stop doing that specific thing.\" I'm left with the impression that you'll do other things that are just as objectionable but different in the specifics, having failed to generalize out a model of why people objected the first time. It seems critical to me that a person leading an organization engaged in marketing EA ideas be reasonably skilled at understanding how their words and behaviors are perceived, and you seem to lack this skill. This leads me to second Jim's comment elsewhere in the thread: \"you need to first level up in an area that has lower stakes.\"", "timestamp": "1471376364"}, {"author": "Alexander", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805694514612&reply_comment_id=805701625362", "anchor": "fb-805694514612_805701625362", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb: The concern raised by gjm in *March* was that a bunch of new LW members were writing effusive praise about you and InIn, with acklowedging the conflict of interest present in that they are paid employees from InIn*. You appeared to acknolwedge this was not ok**, and on being challenged.went around adding comments yourself adding the required disclaimers. Thank you for doing that. As a one-off event this strikes me as a forgivable error and adequate attempt at rectifying it.
But by your own description John is a relatively senior employee/donor who has been around for quite a while, so how did this message that this was not ok (that is, without some attempt at a disclaimer) not reach him? I don't see any disclaimer in any of his effusive praise of you on the EA facebook group. Please correct me if I'm missing it.
*\"In the last few days, a few people have newly joined LW, posting only in a welcome thread and in articles about Gleb_Tsipursky's \"Intentional Insights\" work. Their comments have been very enthusiastic about II...I think there is another obvious explanation, which is that these people are being paid to publicize II, and that the reason why the II-fans we see on LW come disproportionately from developing countries is that it's much cheaper to buy publicity from people in developing countries than from people in, say, the US or Western Europe.\"
**\"However, he made a mistake by not explicitly acknowledging that he works at InIn as well as volunteers at it. It's important to be explicit about stuff like this - his praise for InIn content should be taken with a grain of salt, just like praise from CFAR staff for CFAR content should be taken with a grain of salt. Otherwise, there is an appearance of impropriety. I added a comment to his welcome thread to make that clear.\"", "timestamp": "1471376436"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805694514612&reply_comment_id=805704369862", "anchor": "fb-805694514612_805704369862", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Alexander, having taken a closer look at the posts you mentioned, I think I see what happened. Neither of those posts was by me, and I told him to make sure to avoid praise or upvoting of posts that I made in the EA FB group. I also see that some of our other contractors clicked \u201clike\u201d on the post, even though I asked them not to click \u201clike\u201d on posts I made in the EA FB group. I guess I had not communicated sufficiently clearly that they should not click \u201clike\u201d or make positive comments about posts about InIn that I did not make. I need to be more clear with them about looking out for potential conflict-of-interest situations, and perceptions of such situations. Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention \u2013 I\u2019m sure that if you noticed it, likely other people did too. I will communicate about this to the contractors.
Nathan I think perhaps I did not communicate clearly the nature of my update. I had simply not perceived there to be a concern in having people who were paid by InIn click \u201clike\u201d on our content. As @jacy mentioned, this is quite a common practice among nonprofits, and there are no demands made on other nonprofits to identify conflicts-of-interest. From this conversation, I significantly updated to see that other people might read this as a conflict-of-interest situation. I very carefully address conflicts-of-interest situations with issues where I perceive them, such as with handling organizational finances and separating them from my finances, but this one never occurred to me. Now that I know to look out for it, I will be more capable of addressing perceived conflicts-of-interest situations. Regarding InIn\u2019s role more broadly, you might want to check out more about the organization and get more evidence about our imact before making such categorical decisions, if you had not followed things in the last few months: https://impact.hackpad.com/Intentional-Insights-Spreading...", "timestamp": "1471377927"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805694514612&reply_comment_id=805704928742", "anchor": "fb-805694514612_805704928742", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I'm fairly sure you've not understood my concern, which is further evidence in support of my concern.", "timestamp": "1471378185"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805694514612&reply_comment_id=805708581422", "anchor": "fb-805694514612_805708581422", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nathan, can it possibly also be evidence that you have not communicated your concern sufficiently clearly? I generally perceive it the obligation of the communicator to make her/his message clear. What's your take on this matter?", "timestamp": "1471379395"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805694514612&reply_comment_id=805710183212", "anchor": "fb-805694514612_805710183212", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Yes, it's some evidence of that as well. I'll provide an additional example. In your reply to my comment, you said that you \"significantly updated to see that other people might read this as a conflict-of-interest situation.\" My concern is that your update is only *that* other people see it that way, not *why* they see it that way. This is echoed further when you said later, \"Now that I know to look out for it, I will be more capable of addressing perceived conflicts-of-interest situations.\" The goal isn't for you to address situations topic-by-topic, it's for you to gain a general model of why people are put off by your communications and actions. I haven't seen any evidence that you are doing this.
(Conflict of interest also doesn't even feel like the right label for the main objection, but that's somewhat beside the point.)", "timestamp": "1471380320"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805694514612&reply_comment_id=805711335902", "anchor": "fb-805694514612_805711335902", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nathan, I would have loved for them to share about why they see it the way they do, but they did not communicate that point, as far as I could see. As clarified by Jacy, a number of nonprofits have staff who \"like\" and comment positively on their content. It's not obvious who the nonprofit staff are, unless you know the organization so well that you know the names of staff. And there is no expectation that they will disclose a conflict of interest when they click \"like\" or comment.", "timestamp": "1471380649"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805694514612&reply_comment_id=805713441682", "anchor": "fb-805694514612_805713441682", "service": "fb", "text": "→ As I said in my first comment on this subthread: The skill of understanding how one's words and actions will be perceived appears to me to be essential for someone leading an outreach organization. You appear to lack this skill.
While it would be convenient if people decided to share their reasoning and models with you to make acquiring that skill easier, their not having done so doesn't change either of the assertions above. You're welcome to disagree that the skill is essential, or to disagree that you lack the skill, but your most recent response seems instead to just be an excuse as to why you aren't acquiring it.
You could also disagree that this implies you should level up on something lower-stakes, e.g. by arguing that you can acquire the skill rapidly. My prior is that that's unlikely, but I'd be really happy and excited to see it happen.", "timestamp": "1471381589"}, {"author": "Alexander", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805694514612&reply_comment_id=805713980602", "anchor": "fb-805694514612_805713980602", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"I would have loved for them to share about why they see it [as a confict of interest situation]\", but they did not communicate that point, as far as I could see.\"
My apologies Gleb, if I'd known that you were not understanding this then I would have happily explained further.
Let's say I have a job at a firm X, working 60 hours a week there (as John Chaves does for you between his volunteer work and paid work). My financial security is now directly linked to firm X's viability; if it goes bust, I lose my job and depending on my circumstances could be in deep trouble. So immediately I have an incentive to take any and all actions that might increase the viability of firm X. This goes double if I even *think* that my employer will notice my visible effforts to boost their viability and reward me accordingly.
As a result, when employees at a charitable organisation say 'yeah, you should definitely donate here', it's reasonable to put less weight on this than on an impartial observer. You seem to understand this from your 'pinch of salt' comments back in March. If you have lots and lots of employees (or contractors, or other paid staff), as you appear to, then their collective efforts can dramatically drive up the apparent popularity of your work through focused likes and positive comments. Which seems to be exactly what's happened here.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with them liking your work. Presumably that's why they work for you! But now I and any other casual observer thinks you are much more popular with a wide audience than is actually the case. John commented on your posts in the EA Facebook group many times, but I didn't notice the pattern until there were two within 24 hours of each other. So I formed an unfairly positive impression of you based on the earlier comments. Others may still have that impression.
Which is great for you, and for John, unless and until people notice. Hence the conflict of interest.", "timestamp": "1471381861"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805694514612&reply_comment_id=805717513522", "anchor": "fb-805694514612_805717513522", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Alexander thanks for laying that out so clearly. I see now much more clearly where the conflict of interest comes from. I guess I did not intuitively perceive it because to me a FB like or comment is a pretty low gain, and I would not have wanted the contractors to waste their time on it if I was paying for their time, so did not care much when some of them chose to do it on their volunteer time.
I also self-relfected more on the question you raised earlier, of LW vs. FB. I noticed that I have treated the LW context different than the FB context. On LW, there is a social norm of people disclosing organizations they worked for in their introduction threads if those organizations are relevant to the LW community, such as CFAR or CEA. This is why I was immediately struck by the fact that the contractors did not, and perceived that as a faux pas.
On FB, I have not seen such as social norms. As Jacy pointed out, nonprofit employees frequently \u201clike\u201d and comment positively on their organization\u2019s postings. This happens in the EA FB group as well, for instance in this recent post: https://www.facebook.com/groups/effective.altruists/permalink/1119703298086026/ Only those who knew the names of those who worked for EAF would be able to recognize that some of the likes came from the organization\u2019s staff members. Moreover, I didn't and still don't think of contractors as \"staff\" - they can get paid much more if they work elsewhere, they are working at InIn due to their own enthusiasm for it, and are even donating to the cause as I highlighted earlier. So I oriented toward this social norm in FB interactions, and did not ask the contractors to carry over their disclosures from LW to FB. I did ask them to stop upvoting and commenting on comments I made after a private conversations with another EA, but did not address the issue of comments about InIn made by others. Like I said, I will ask them to be very diligent about avoiding commenting or liking posts about InIn.", "timestamp": "1471383496"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805694514612&reply_comment_id=805924468782", "anchor": "fb-805694514612_805924468782", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"No idea about Nyor Hoype. Just a fan, I guess. And if he wasn\u2019t, I would have told you \u2013 there\u2019s no point in me sharing about John and not sharing about this person if I knew who this person is.\"
Really? In the t-shirt discussion Nyor identified themself as the person who designed them: https://www.facebook.com/.../permalink/1182573298438678/...", "timestamp": "1471491525"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805694514612&reply_comment_id=805925107502", "anchor": "fb-805694514612_805925107502", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff Kaufman Oh, then it's Jojo. I didn't realize he's changed his FB name. He posted that FB comment under his original name. He's facing a potential legal case in the Emirates, where he lives and works, maybe that's why he changed his name? I don't really keep track of these things, like I said - it's outside of their contracted work activities and isn't something I pay much attention to. I guess I should pay more attention now since so many people on this thread are getting riled up about it!", "timestamp": "1471492058"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805718506532", "anchor": "fb-805718506532", "service": "fb", "text": "I had several updates from this blog and thread of comments.
1) There is a gap between my understanding of conflicts-of-interest and some other people\u2019s perceptions of them. I don\u2019t intuitively perceive a conflict-of-interest between letting people who are supporters and volunteers of the organization, and are also part-time contactors for the organization, praise the organization in public venues as long as they are not being paid by the organization to do so. Those part-time contactors \u2013 people who work for us for 2-15 hours a week, volunteer much more time than they work, and also donate to the organization \u2013 praised the organization on their own volunteer time, not during times they were paid to do tasks for the organization. It would have been irresponsible to spend money on such a low-value task as clicking \u201clike\u201d or making a positive FB comment. Moreover, plenty of other organizations in the nonprofit sector, including in the EA movement as Jacy highlighted, permit their employees to do so if they wish. It's not obvious who the nonprofit staff are, unless you know the organization so well that you know the names of staff. And there is no expectation that they will disclose a conflict of interest when they click \"like\" or comment. Still, this seems to have been very upsetting for some people, and I wish to avoid causing people stress and sadness.
1A) To address this concern, I have now gone and asked them to not click \"like\" on any posts on the Intentional Insights FB page or the Dr. Gleb FB page, or any FB groups besides the ones that InIn manages, however much they may appreciate the content. I did say they can keep clicking like on posts on my profile or in the groups that InIn manages. Note, they may occasionally forget to avoid clicking \"like\" at first, but they'll break out of that habit soon enough. More broadly, when I understand the nature of a concern, I update very quickly and gladly. This is especially the case in a matter I perceive as super-trivial to the organization's actual core mission and function, as saying such positive things or clicking like is really not very impactful at all. So now I asked him and others to whom InIn pays money not to do it anymore except in the venues mentioned above. I also have primed them and other members of the organization to be extra diligent about perceived conflict-of-interest situations, and strongly emphasize avoiding them.
2) Many people were surprised that we target our content not only to wealthy countries, but globally, and that we have contractors who are not from wealthy countries.
2A) We made a choice to orient toward spreading the message of effective giving to all human beings, both because we see all people as equal and because the resource cost of reaching those in less wealthy countries is often much less than the cost of reaching people in developed countries, for example via the Google Adwords nonprofit grant. Our multinational cast of contractors helps ensure that these messages are appealing globally, not only in wealthy countries, but also among those middle-class demographics in less wealthy countries who own a computer and can easily access the internet, and have disposable wealth to give to charity. Thus, just over half of the hits to our website come from less wealthy countries. I think this gives Intentional Insights a big advantage in being global communicators, and do not intend to change this approach. Likewise, being an immigrant from the former USSR, I feel culturally comfortable with organizing a globally-spanning organization with a diverse, multicultural team.
3) As Jeff Kaufman later stated in the discussion thread, his biggest concern \u2013 and that of many others, based on what they stated \u2013 is neither the issue of contactors and FB likes, nor the targeting of content at or paying volunteer enthusiasts from less wealthy countries. The underlying concern seems to be an emotional reaction that Jeff Kaufman described as \u201cYou're talking about GiveWell, AMF, effectiveness, etc. in a way that feels scammy and sales-y.\u201d
3A) Indeed, I and other Intentional Insights volunteers are indeed using the organization to bring core concepts of cost-effectiveness and impact, and the organizations that embody these values - GiveWell, AMF, etc. - to a broad audience using modern content marketing methods. I understand that some EA movement members have a negative perception of these methods. However, they are not the target audience. Jeff correctly noted that the key is to evaluate \u201cdo they find it resonating with them or do they recoil etc.\u201d and we have quite a lot of evidence that they find it resonating with them. You can see more on the InIn impact here: https://impact.hackpad.com/Intentional-Insights-Spreading...
3B) Research on effective communication and evidence of impact informs our approach, and we are committed to using methods that are most effective in appealing to our target demographic groups. I and other Intentional Insights core participants strongly believe in orienting toward effective, research-driven communication methods. So we are deliberately avoiding talking about EA in the large majority of our pieces to avoid possible taint to that brand, while serving the cause through promulgating these ideas broadly. And believe me, we are not the only EA meta-charity using content marketing methods, we're just one of several doing so, and in fact help a number of other orgs that are trying to target a broad audience become better at doing so. As Matt Wage described in \u201cThe Haste Consideration\u201d we as EA movement members can make a huge difference if we effectively promote EA-themed ideas: http://careyryan.com/files/EA_Handbook.pdf The more people adopt the ideas of effective giving, without any presumption of or need for them to ever become Effective Altruists, the more resources would flow to effective charities, and the less suffering there would be. Likewise, EAs can redirect their resources toward more \u201cweird\u201d cause areas as the less \u201cweird\u201d ones are filled up by people engaging in effective giving. So while we will be happy to shift some aspects of our approach, we will do so based on evidence of greater or lesser impact or further scientific studies.
P.S. And if you are eager for us to shift our approach, I would love for you to tell me where I\u2019m wrong based on evidence of impact on our target demographics, or evidence from research studies about that. I very much appreciate evidence-based criticism, as such criticism can make our work only stronger :-) At this point, I\u2019m tuning out for the day \u2013 good night all!", "timestamp": "1471383732"}, {"author": "Owen", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805718506532&reply_comment_id=805787777712", "anchor": "fb-805718506532_805787777712", "service": "fb", "text": "→ There's a lot going on in the details here, but I think we may benefit from stepping back.
Are you familiar with the \"unilateralist's curse\" argument? http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/unilateralist.pdf
This seems a bit like it's one of those set-ups. We have disagreements about what at the object level is best to do. That's fine, it happens a lot in EA, and different people diversify into different strategies, which is fine (some diversity of strategies is important; we could get it by all agreeing on what to do and then how to diversity, but this is easier). What's unusual here is that several people aren't claiming only that what InIn is doing is not the most effective, but suggesting that it's actively harmful.
There are several people making this claim, and I think they include some of the most thoughtful and well-meaning people involved in effective altruism. That is quite striking. It may be that in this case they are wrong, and that the InIn strategy is a good one. I think that they cannot be accused of not being open to arguments, though. Given that, it's surely better if as a community we strive to avoid the unilateralist's curse?", "timestamp": "1471414992"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805718506532&reply_comment_id=805963869822", "anchor": "fb-805718506532_805963869822", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Owen, well familiar. You can see me addressing it through posts like this: https://www.facebook.com/groups/effective.altruists/permalink/1072450499477973/ I also reached out to influencers in the EA community to check about this issue. This is one of many such examples.", "timestamp": "1471517672"}, {"author": "Owen", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805718506532&reply_comment_id=806134248382", "anchor": "fb-805718506532_806134248382", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb, yes, I think you have done well to poll opinions on issues like that. I meant that you should also use it at the higher-level question of \"Is Intentional Insights currently helping?\"", "timestamp": "1471605538"}, {"author": "Tom", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805735063352", "anchor": "fb-805735063352", "service": "fb", "text": "I became interested enough in this thread to try and figure out what I thought and ended up writing a summary of it:
There are 4 main worries people had about Gleb and his brand Intentional Insights (II)
WORRY 1
II is spammy/cultish and this might negatively affect the EA brand.
Gleb\u2019s Response
II advocates effective giving, not EA; the effectiveness of II\u2019s outreach efforts, articles and branding are supported by research. They were never designed to appeal to EAs.
My Conclusion:
There are links to EA organisations and occasional mention of EA, so the EA brand could plausibly be negatively affected. That said, there's plausibly a gap in the market for what II offers and this could do a lot of good.
There is reason to doubt Gleb\u2019s competency (see worries 3 and 4) and so we may doubt that his use of research is effective. There is also reason to suspect Gleb values II significantly above EA (see worries 3 and 4); if so his research show his II\u2019s branding are good for II without showing they\u2019re good for EA.
WORRY 2
II pays for people to like and comment enthusiastically about Gleb's and II's posts; this is misleading and deeply suspicious.
Gleb\u2019s Response
People are paid to work for II but not to specifically like II's posts. However liking (and commenting enthusiastically on) II\u2019s posts is a very natural way to achieve good \u201csocial media management\u201d, which II employees are being paid for. It\u2019s normal for non-profits to engage in this behaviour. In fact, II\u2019s workers are all super-passionate about II and this is the main reason they like things; their comments are all genuine.
My Conclusion
The nature of the comments (spammy) suggest that they don\u2019t result from genuine passion but are being made because its (implicitly) part of the commenters job description. Plausibly, the employees pretend to be passionate to Gleb to get work off him. Possibly, Gleb knows they aren\u2019t passionate and is misleading us. Either way, the likes and comments are highly misleading. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s normal for non-profits to engage in deceptive behaviour on this scale. Conceivably, it could be effective to be promote one\u2019s material in this way, but there\u2019s reason for concern. This increases the power of worry 1.
Caveat
It is possible that the employees are as passionate about II as Gleb claims to believe. If so, the above negative conclusion mostly stands because the likes and comments are still misleading . For they appear to be from people who have spontaneously read II articles and been impressed; in fact they\u2019re from people who are paid to manage II\u2019s media presence and whose livelihoods (partly) depend on II flourishing.
Also, if Gleb is right about the enthusiasm of his employees, this increases the extent to which II is a bizarre cult.
WORRY 3
Gleb wasn\u2019t upfront and transparent to EAs about the fact that the likes of II posts were paid for. First he denied II paid for likes; latter he claimed the people were hired because they liked the posts; lastly he admitted that it would help them achieve the goals they\u2019re paid to achieve.
Gleb\u2019s Response
When Gleb denied II paid likes, he was denying they engaged in the specific practice of paying people specifically to like the posts. It\u2019s perfectly consistent to hold that people are hired because of their enthusiasm for II (i.e. because they like II\u2019s comments), and then continue like comments so efficiently because they\u2019re paid to do so.
Conclusion
if Gleb\u2019s employees are as enthusiastic as he claims, his apparent unwillingness to admit that II paid for likes can be put down mostly to miscommunication (and thus limited incompetency on Gleb\u2019s part). Personally, I doubt this and suspect that either they\u2019re less enthusiastic than Gleb thinks (and Gleb is highly incompetent for not realising), or that Gleb is misleading us about them to improve our view of II. I\u2019m not sure which I think is true: probably a mixture of the two.
WORRY 4
Either Gleb is willing to mislead the EA community, or he\u2019s incompetent
a) Gleb started thread about II\u2019s work in LessWrong before/during a funding bid, after his employees had joined the site. If competent, he\u2019d know that they\u2019d comment enthusiastically on his post, misleading people into thinking that II was more successful than it really was.
b) Despite people talking to Gleb about this at the time, it happened again 3 months later, with employees liking and commenting on posts about II on the EA facebook page during a fundraising surge.
The natural impression is that Gleb happy to mislead the EA community to improve their view of II. This view sits well with the fact that Gleb is very self-promotional.
Gleb\u2019s Response
a) Gleb told his employees to join LessWrong to learn about rationality, not to promote II. He never wanted to promote II\u2019s content on LessWrong, as that\u2019s not their target audience. In response, Gleb told his employees to leave LessWrong and not to like posts by him on EA facebook groups.
b) The posts about II they did like were in fact made by another employee. This explains why they continued to mislead the EA community.
Conclusion
a) Gleb definitely should have anticipated that his employees\u2019 comments on LessWrong would mislead the community about II\u2019s success as an organisation. It\u2019s irrelevant that his employees joined to learn about rationality, and that Gleb doesn\u2019t want LessWrong people to join II. So, at best, Gleb was incompetent.
Gleb\u2019s stated (but imo implausible) view about how committed his employees are to his company partially explains why he still fails to recognise how misleading their comments were. I explain in \u201cCaveat\u201d why there comments are obviously misleading even Gleb\u2019s stated view is correct.
It\u2019s possible that II\u2019s employees joined LessWrong not to learn about rationality but to promote his posts there. If so, Gleb has lied a lot. Personally, I\u2019m inclined to trust Gleb here.
b) His corrective action (telling employees to leave LessWrong and to not to like his posts on EA fb groups) was insufficient; a proper understanding of the initial problem would have led to the corrective action of telling his employees not to engage in \u201csocial media management\u201d on any EA forums, but only to post totally genuine comments on them. So Gleb, was incompetent. Again, Gleb\u2019s stated (and imo implausible) view that all his employees\u2019 comments are fully genuine partially explains his mistake.
Thus negatively one judges Gleb depends largely on how enthusiastic you think his employees actually are.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Worry 1 is legitimate \u2013 II does seem spammy and there\u2019s a genuine fear that EA\u2019s brand could be affected. However, it seems plausible that being spammy could do a lot of good, so it's not clear what to do about this worry. What you think might come down to your trust in Gleb\u2019s intentions and capabilities (which might be influenced by worries 3 and 4).
Worry 2 is probably legitimate \u2013 II\u2019s use of paid likes is misleading and dodgy; however it is conceivably effective.
Worry 3 isn\u2019t legitimate if you believe Gleb\u2019s stated belief about his employees enthusiasm. If you don\u2019t (like me) then Gleb\u2019s comments to us about paid likes were misleading.
Worry 4 is legitimate \u2013 Gleb was incompetent in letting his employees post in LessWrong and the EA fb group; possibly he allowed this to happen to improve II\u2019s image among EAs. If you doubt Gleb\u2019s stated belief about this employees\u2019 enthusiasm then this was seriously incompetent or misleading or both.", "timestamp": "1471391169"}, {"author": "Malcolm", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805735063352&reply_comment_id=805787807652", "anchor": "fb-805735063352_805787807652", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Kudos for structuring the discussion!", "timestamp": "1471415042"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292", "anchor": "fb-805753556292", "service": "fb", "text": "Reading this discussion has helped clarify my thoughts here, and I can think through more of what I would have liked to go into the blog post:
My primary concern with Intentional Insights is that its attempt at spreading EA ideas is harmful. The techniques it uses read as scammy and scummy, like someone trying to sell you something. Even though it generally avoids promoting EA by name, and instead pushes EA ideas, organizations, and charities, it is still, by design, most readers first exposure to these concepts. Since you're targeting a different audience than existing EAs, it's not necessarily a problem that existing EAs find its articles offputting, but it is a negative sign.
Popularization, and especially a \"content marketing\" approach like yours, requires substantial simplification of ideas. This is generally a risky approach, since these ideas are nuanced and complex. I'm worried that even people who thoroughly read InIn's posts won't be coming away with key movement concepts intact.
What makes you believe your readers are learning EA ideas from your posts, beyond just that this is what you intend when you write them? Blog posts typically receive comments from readers, engaging with the ideas they present, but I don't see that with InIn posts. Instead when I see comments they're things like:
\"I agree with you, we need to assess the situation intentionally\"
\"very inspiring article\"
\"nice article!!!\"
\"I totally get your point and I agree with all the thoughts you pointed out! Thanks for sharing! :)\"
All of these comments are by John Chavez, who apparently only posts [1] on Intentional Insights articles, and nearly-always with a kind of praise that doesn't tell us anything about what he got out of reading the article.
This gets into the reason I and others are concerned with your volunteer/contractor assistant setup, where it seems like the only people positively engaging with your content are people you also pay. When I see someone like John praising your posts, at this point I assume they're paid? But (a) there's no list I can check, and people don't reliably disclose their affiliation with InIn and (b) someone more casually looking into InIn wouldn't know to discount their support.
There are some comments that do indicate more thought, but those are even more worrying:
\"I totally agree that with the use of math, the future can be predicted, maybe with a slight marginal error. All matters can be quantified, thus making them measurable, even as complicated as love. And the most useful tool to predict or quantify the future is through math or more accurately, statistics.\"
Which you responded to, with:
\"I am pleased you find the article encouraging and beneficial. I do aim, through this post and for the other posts that I will share as part of this statistics series, that people will learn to use statistics to improve their everyday lives such as making good decisions. Thank you!\" [2]
This has me pretty concerned. Not only are people coming away from InIn articles with major misconceptions, but after reading comments like this you just happily encourage them!
I haven't seen evidence that InIn articles are convincing people to be more effective, rational, or altruistic, and what evidence I've seen of engagement is possibly entirely people you employ. If your traffic numbers were from un-boosted unpaid social media then this would tell us that some people went from reading your posts to deciding to share them, but I'm not even seeing that.
So: I see reasons people might be turned off by InIn posts, reasons popularization is hard to do well, and no indication people are actually internalizing EA ideas from InIn posts. This makes me think it's very likely InIn is doing more harm than good.
[1] https://disqus.com/by/disqus_NBiOyKqZYa/ Other similar accounts are https://disqus.com/by/chaarenas/ https://disqus.com/by/shyam123/ https://disqus.com/by/jojoolivar/ https://disqus.com/by/beatricesargin/ https://disqus.com/by/Ashish141060/ https://disqus.com/by/ellakasandraaquino/ https://disqus.com/by/dipanjalikundu/ https://disqus.com/by/candiceolivar/
[2] on http://intentionalinsights.org/you-can-predict-the-future", "timestamp": "1471398540"}, {"author": "Jacy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805758646092", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805758646092", "service": "fb", "text": "→ ", "timestamp": "1471399911"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805788755752", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805788755752", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jacy, I strongly disagree with your overall framing.
A norm of giving narrowly targeted, usable feedback, and responding to every substantive objection raised is excellent way to help people who are trying to cooperate and seem to make good use of feedback. But independent of this specific issue, there needs to be some threshold of behavior past which we don't enforce such a norm. Otherwise, we allow anyone who does not meet basic community standards, whether unable to meet them, unwilling to accept them due to an unresolvable disagreement, or a brazen scammer, to command ever-increasing amounts of attention from people such as Jeff who try to uphold these standards by pointing out violations.", "timestamp": "1471416497"}, {"author": "Jacy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805789494272", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805789494272", "service": "fb", "text": "→ ", "timestamp": "1471417339"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805794763712", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805794763712", "service": "fb", "text": "→ As for of InIn impact goes the Autopilot system/Intentional System vocabulary is interesting. Gleb coined it and it appear in writing of other people like https://medium.com/.../have-you-ever-wondered-how-the... , http://www.therapyctr.com/how-to-master-your-emotions/ , http://samueljwoods.com/donald-trump-growth-hacking.../ used it afterwards.", "timestamp": "1471422611"}, {"author": "Ross", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805804554092", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805804554092", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Christian: Just judging by the name, is Autopilot/Intentional the same thing as System 1/System 2?", "timestamp": "1471432801"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805805073052", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805805073052", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Ross Yes, Gleb renamed System 1/System 2 into Autopilot/Intentional system because he thinks those terms are easier to understand for a public and more catchy. This has the effect that you can track if someone leared the concepts from Gleb ;)", "timestamp": "1471433478"}, {"author": "Ross", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805805217762", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805805217762", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Christian I weakly expect this renaming to be a *bad* thing, for the reasons Malcolm discusses here: http://malcolmocean.com/.../sparkly-pink-purple-ball-thing/
[edit: The downstream discussion has convinced me to be less worried about this issue.]", "timestamp": "1471433622"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805805327542", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805805327542", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I also think that the particular terms chosen aren't good (and have said so on LW) but as it stands the fact that other people adopt the term illustrates that people don't simply ignore Gleb's articles.", "timestamp": "1471433734"}, {"author": "Ross", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805805916362", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805805916362", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Point conceded. People don't simply ignore Gleb's articles. However, as Jeff raised a concern about earlier, this drive to strip nuance in favor of popularity and catchiness is worrying at best, and at worst, actively harmful to the goal of spreading rationality and EA memes.
If the simplified ideas weren't spreading (because people who got interested went looking for more rigorous explanations), that would be preferable in many ways to a world in which people repeat Gleb's simplifications without any seeming conception that they *are* simplifications.", "timestamp": "1471434082"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805806465262", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805806465262", "service": "fb", "text": "→ (The particular case of renaming System 1/2 doesn't bother me, because the standard names are awful. In any popularization people should pick better terms, and ideally we can consense on some over time.)", "timestamp": "1471434410"}, {"author": "Ross", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805806729732", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805806729732", "service": "fb", "text": "→ (Slightly surprised by your opinion, Jeff. I assume that you describe the S1/S2 nomenclature as \"awful\" because it's nonobvious what each means?)", "timestamp": "1471434630"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805808146892", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805808146892", "service": "fb", "text": "→ (Yes. People get them mixed up. The same goes for type 1/2 errors. In general I'm against renaming terms, but a distinction between \"foo 1\" and \"foo 2\" seems hard to get people to remember.)", "timestamp": "1471435117"}, {"author": "Ross", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805808506172", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805808506172", "service": "fb", "text": "→ (Hm. Type 1/2 bothers me, too, so I think I get that. Still, I worry that in the thinking-systems sense, a term-pair that's *too* intuitive/evocative makes too easy for people to jump to mistaken conclusions.)", "timestamp": "1471435428"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805812543082", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805812543082", "service": "fb", "text": "→ It's also troublesome that in some other discussions of the concept, e.g. in the book 'Inner Game of Tennis', the 1 and 2 are exactly flipped around. Having better names would be great, but I think part of the reason we don't is that dual process theory itself just isn't that solid yet. There are multiple dual process theories, there doesn't appear to be a strong consensus that the general idea is even correct, and to the extent that it is we're certainly not clear on exactly where the boundaries lie. This being the case, I think using other words to describe the general notion of \"intuitive vs reflective\" or \"autopilot vs intentional\" is pretty good (and different words will be appropriate depending on the context), but I don't think that one should act as though those models are a scientific consensus, nor present them as being equivalent to e.g. Kahneman's work on the subject. (I haven't read Gleb's presentation of these concepts, so I don't know whether it's objectionable on these metrics.)
Edit: Just found Gleb's lifehack article via the medium article posted above. He does explicitly promote these terms as alternative names for Kahneman's S1/S2.", "timestamp": "1471437952"}, {"author": "Raymond", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805816465222", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805816465222", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I think it's debatable whether Autopilot/Intention is better than Sys1/Sys2, but I don't think it's in the same category of \"worrying\" as the other issues brought up in this thread.
I do share many of the concerns here but want to make sure people don't start filtering everything Gleb does through an anti-halo effect.", "timestamp": "1471440341"}, {"author": "Neela", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805872837252", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805872837252", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Quick non-sequitur: Chip & Dan Heath have a more evocative name \"Elephant-Rider\" - the Elephant being System 1 and Rider being System 2 (not sure they are the originators). It also nicely reinforces that if the six ton Elephant doesn't want to do something, the small Rider is essentially powerless. I've used both with varying success. People find the E-R to be powerful but too \"cute\" and System 1/2 to be more 'science-y\" but as Jeff says, can't remember which is which. Still trying to find the perfect blend and totally happy to find a new set of labels.", "timestamp": "1471468991"}, {"author": "Howie", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805910317142", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805910317142", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I despise the phrases \"system 1/2\" and \"type 1/2 errors.\" I am terrible at holding arbitrary proper noun-type things in my head.", "timestamp": "1471484155"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=805920836062", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_805920836062", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff Kaufman thanks for raising these much more specific points and I appreciate Jacy for drawing my attention to it. I've been somewhat overwhelmed with the thread, so am not catching all comments. If anyone wants to draw my attention to a specific comment, please FB message me about it.
Here are your concerns as I understand them:
1) You expressed a concern that \u201cThe techniques [InIn] uses read as scammy and scummy, like someone trying to sell you something\u201d and thus \u201cpeople might be turned off by InIn posts\u201d from EA
1A) My response: The techniques are informed by the kind of articles our audience likes to read already. We match our content to the audience, and write in a style approapriate to each audience level. For instance, this piece might seem scammy, salesy, and scammy to you, but it fits right in to the rest of the pieces on Lifehack, one of the most prominent self-improvement websites in the world: http://www.lifehack.org/357644/the-secret-giving-wisely As you can see, it was shared 62 times, which indicates it was read widely. By contrast, see this article in Time magazine, which has a different audience, and thus a more intellectual bent: http://time.com/4257876/wounded-warrior-project-scandal/ It made the front page of Google news for a couple of days for the search term \u201cWounded Warrior\u201d during the height of the Wounder Warrior scandal, and was read by hundreds of thousands. We have data of many clicks on the effective charities mentioned in the piece, and received private emails thanking us for getting good traffic to them. I can come up with many similar examples of where we fit our content to our target audience.
2) You expressed a concern that \u201cpopularization is hard to do well\u201d
2A) My response is that we at InIn agree very much it\u2019s hard to do well. Research on effective communication and evidence of impact informs our approach, and we are committed to using methods that are most effective in appealing to our target demographic groups. I and other Intentional Insights core participants strongly believe in orienting toward effective, research-driven communication methods. So we are deliberately avoiding talking about EA in the large majority of our pieces to avoid possible taint to that brand, while serving the cause through promulgating these ideas broadly. And believe me, we are not the only EA meta-charity using content marketing methods, we're just one of several doing so, and in fact help a number of other orgs that are trying to target a broad audience become better at doing so.
3) You expressed a concern that there is \u201cno indication people are actually internalizing EA ideas from InIn posts\u201d
3A) My response: I judge whether people internalize ideas based on their actions. I wonder if you took the time to read our evidence of impact, available in our Hackpad page which I linked here multiple times. For example the reference letter quoted here from the media director of The Life You Can Save: https://docs.google.com/.../1FnTWEU.../edit... This evidence should show you that we had 7 articles there through May 16, 2016, when she wrote that, and more since. As she wrote, my pieces \u201cregularly reach an audience of over 5,000, at least 12% of whom make a donation.\u201d As another example, we published an article in The Huffington Post that encouraged effective decision-making in donations by comparing the impact of one\u2019s donations in the US to the much larger impact of one\u2019s donations in developing countries highlighting GiveDirectly: http://intentionalinsights.org/how-to-supercharge-your... We later found out from GiveDirectly staff that $500 was donated just through people clicking on the link in the article. The actual impact of the article on donations to effective causes is going to be much more, as the vast majority of people who will have found out about GiveDirectly from the article will take a while to donate as they research the topic and consider their donations.
I hope that helps provide clarity regarding your concerns.", "timestamp": "1471489916"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805753556292&reply_comment_id=806020680972", "anchor": "fb-805753556292_806020680972", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Neela Gleb speaks also about Elephant and Rider and has nice pictures of a rider sitting on an elephant on his website.", "timestamp": "1471547316"}, {"author": "Alasdair", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472", "anchor": "fb-805768436472", "service": "fb", "text": "On the matter of paid likes this from Rob-Muirhead - who who knows more about the technical side, but can't post for professional reasons and has asked me to post on their behalf:
Hi Gleb.
I think most people have made the non-marketing specific feedback I would have made.
But I saw these http://imgur.com/a/EQpme and this http://imgur.com/a/7AmAG.
From this information it seems like there is strong evidence that you did buy likes, or something to that extent. Also, it looks like your web traffic is impossible, unless I am missing something.
1) Most of your Facebook fans are from Dhaka, Karachi and Jakarta - Dhaka is the largest clickfarm hub in the world, and the other cities are similar. I have spent some time marketing to APAC and, long story short, organic traffic from these countries looks very different to what you have here. I don't imagine it would be skewed if it were achieved via CPM or CPC promotion, but buying Facebook followers and likes would explain it.
2) 1,284 of your likes are from Indonesia. Indonesians mostly do not speak English. But InIn only uses English, as far as I know? These people who do not understand your content are liking it en masse? Or do you just advertise to a huge audience and enough speak sufficient English to understand your content?
3)You are targeting audiences in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and Pakistan - but not countries which have similar CPM and CPC but aren't renowned as clickfarms - for example Papau New Guinea, several African states, Taiwan, Jamaica... Why not those countries, some of which have far more English speakers, and are also similar or much cheaper to advertise in than countries renowned for clickfarming?
4) A couple of InIn's posts are overwhelmingly supported by people from clickfarm countries, who then seem to ignore all other posts. Any posts with significant support receive likes in multiples of 100 from clickfarm countries. Nobody comments or shares. General rule of thumb is that a post with hundreds of likes should have dozens of shares minimum. There are certainly cases where sharing or commenting isn't appropriate for people, but this doesn't look like one.
5) InIn has 5,962 followers on Facebook. These followers are split into two sections: 11 people who like everything you post and who you work with, and 5,951 followers who do not interact with anything that is posted.
6) On the web side, there is a disproportionate amount of web traffic coming from the Phillipines and India relative to your Filipino social media fans - maybe you advertise to different countries through Adwords and the social media presence isn't adding much traffic to your site?
7) Bounce rate on your Google Analytics says ~26%, yet average pages viewed per session is 1.31 - that's not mathematically possible. At the lowest pageview estimate with that rate, 74% of users viewed two pages in a session, while 26% viewed one. That means the average user viewed 1.74 pages.
\ud83d\ude0e Web stats just seem a bit weird... for any content site that doesn't link externally and has low bounce rates you would expect average page duration of way more than two minutes, and far more pageviews per session.
There are four or five other minor things but those are the main ones and I need to sleep. Can you clarify on some of those points? Also, while I wouldn't suggest posting it publicly, it would be interesting to see your Acquisition for web - sources and queries if you have Search Console enabled - or the Behaviour Flow for more dubious audience segments.", "timestamp": "1471403763"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=805819299542", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_805819299542", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I have some experience with web development and web analytics and I can't agree with many of these conclusions.
1) This can be easily explained by CPC campaigns on Facebook and not buying likes (which is against Facebook's ToS as far as I know). I remember even marketing expert Neil Patel recommending experimenting with targeted campaigns to Indonesia, Malaysia etc. to lower the costs per click - so it's pretty common/standard practice in my understanding. It may not make much sense if the goal is to increase the amount of money raised for charities, but definitely can be explained without accusing of violating ToS.
2) You can target to users who use Facebook in English, which is pretty logical thing to do while setting up a CPC campaign.
4) If Gleb promoted single post, not the whole fanpage, then it's expected that only boosted post got more attention and likes.
5) The organic reach is quite small (5-8% of fanbase) especially for links (for example videos/gifs get much more reach), same goes for engagement. So really tiny organic activity is expected.
7) Bounce rate is not measured based on number of pages visited (you assumed at least two) but on the time spent on website (I think on default it is at least 10 seconds, but you can change that in analytics settings)
8) InIn links externally + 1.31 is rather low but still within norm", "timestamp": "1471442150"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=805886195482", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_805886195482", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Robert Muirhead and Alasdair
1) I clearly and publicly explained in the LessWrong comments that we boost posts (what Daniel described as CPC campaigns, something done by almost all if not all EA orgs) to Southeast Asian countries: http://lesswrong.com/.../the_valentines_day_gift.../daj4 We do so because that area has a large number of young secular people, who we see as a natural target demographic for effective giving messages. We target boosted posts only to people who list being secular or atheist in their profiles, which is not what clickbots do \u2013 this is the way we get around the clickbot issue, and make sure we target only secular people.
2) We target Facebook bosts to users who list English as a language they speak.
3) Those countries don\u2019t have nearly as many people who list secular on their FB profile. We tried boosting it there, but because we listed secular as a necessary key identifier, we didn\u2019t get much responses. By contrast, there are very many people who list secular as an identifier on their FB in Southeast Asian countries.
4) We only boost certain posts. Most we boost to fans of our FB page, who happen to be mainly from Southeast Asia. Sometimes, we boost it to other demographics that we determine to be appropriate for that post \u2013 for instance, the recent post on animal advocacy we boosted to those who listed animal rights as something they cared about, including to people who are not our FB fans.
5) Not the case. Posts we boost get hundreds of like clicks. Other posts are liked by people who follow the page closely. For instance, here\u2019s the latest post and those who liked it: http://imgur.com/a/ycI57 Not one of these people gets any money from InIn.
6) Our Google Adwords and FB boosting are different. Unfortunately, Google doesn\u2019t allow targeting by someone being \u201csecular\u201d so we don\u2019t have that filter there. Moreover, due to the many articles we publish in US-oriented venues, such as Huffington Post or Psychology Today or Time or Salon, we get lots of traffic from there to our website. We get decent traffic from social media but it can always be improved if you\u2019d like to volunteer to advise :-)
7) Daniel answered about bounce rate", "timestamp": "1471474430"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=805888141582", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_805888141582", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb, you didn't respond to this part of point 4, which I'm quite interested in: \"Nobody comments or shares. General rule of thumb is that a post with hundreds of likes should have dozens of shares minimum.\" Do you have any idea why it's consistently the case that when an InIn post is liked by hundreds of people, not a single one of them comments or shares (aside from Sargin)?", "timestamp": "1471475499"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=805916499752", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_805916499752", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nathan, no idea - perhaps the sharing culture is different in Southeast Asia? I haven't asked.", "timestamp": "1471487816"}, {"author": "Oliver", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=805945596442", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_805945596442", "service": "fb", "text": "→ From the best of what I can tell, there is not much discernable difference between buying likes from Facebook and from Click Farms directly. See this video (ignore the clickbaity title. It's a decent video by a fairly decent Youtube Science channel):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=144...
Given the demographic profile that Gleb is targeting, it is almost guaranteed that the majority of the likes and views he gets are from click-farms. It is completely irrelevant whether these clicks come from \"legitimate\" forms of promotion such as Facebook CPC campaigns, or \"illegitimate\" forms of promotion such as online boosting services.
Anyone with online marketing experience knows that independently of how Gleb acquired the followers on his blog, that the actual user pattern of the followers is heavily indicative of click-farm patterns. Even if other EA organizations are using CPC or similar methods that can result (if not targeted correctly, or optimized the wrong way) in such faulty followers, I am not aware of any single one of them using the resulting engagement as evidence of their effectiveness. If any would do so, I would strongly speak up against them.
I will happily take a 1:2 bet that the average engagement time of people reading Gleb's post is significantly lower (by at least 30%) than on any other post on the TLYCS blog, and similar for his Facebook posts and shares. Gleb might not be aware of this, but it nevertheless means that virtually all the evidence he cites for Intentional Insights' work being effective at reaching a larger audience is fraud. Independently of whether he intended that or not.", "timestamp": "1471500523"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=805953924752", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_805953924752", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb Can you check Oliver's hypothesis?", "timestamp": "1471501372"}, {"author": "Oliver", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=805954059482", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_805954059482", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Ah, sorry. I want to correct my specific hypothesis. I meant \"the average post on the TLYCS' blog that is not written by Gleb\". I think that's fairly obvious from context, but just wanted to clarify that.
(i.e. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a post by Gleb that has higher engagement than some other post by TLYCS.)", "timestamp": "1471501550"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=805954174252", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_805954174252", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I'd also second watching the video Oliver linked about how boosting facebook ads can accidentally give you a clickfarm audience that doesn't engage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag", "timestamp": "1471501867"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=805964713132", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_805964713132", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Oliver and Carl We target boosted posts only to people who list being secular or atheist in their profiles in Southeast Asia, which is not what clickbots do \u2013 this is the way we get around the clickbot issue, and make sure we target only secular people. However, this video is illuminating and will help inform our future FB posts - thanks for bringing it to my attention, Oliver! BTW, how much of a bet would you be willing to make on the 1:2 basis?", "timestamp": "1471518264"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=805969298942", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_805969298942", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Gleb: \"We target boosted posts only to people who list being secular or atheist in their profiles in Southeast Asia, which is not what clickbots do\"
How do you know this? My experience with clickfraud was that bot operators would make their traffic as similar as possible to real traffic, because otherwise it would be detected and ignored. A clickfarm is in a similar situation, where it makes sense to fill out account details to better seem real.", "timestamp": "1471521973"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806006324742", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806006324742", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb \"\"We target boosted posts only to people who list being secular or atheist in their profiles in Southeast Asia, which is not what clickbots do\"\"
The video discusses (6:00-7:00) in experiments with a page called Virtual Cat that said \"Here's we'll post only the worst, most annoying drivel you can imagine. Only an idiot would like this page.\" Ads targeted to cat-lovers in the US/Australia/UK delivered plenty of fake likes to this page.", "timestamp": "1471540458"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806006863662", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806006863662", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Bot operators would not be likely to put things like \"secular\" in their identity category, as that identity bears a somewhat pejorative connotation in Southeast Asian countries: http://www.nytimes.com/.../bangladesh-killings-bloggers.html
But let me do you one better. I went on the latest InIn post and clicked on the first name that appeared to originate from a Southeast Asian country, Dkshu Kapkoti: http://imgur.com/a/dFjzK
I then went and scanned her profile: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008619424933...
Much of it is closed to me, since I\u2019m not her FB friend, but she posts things mainly about herself and her life, and not advertisements or anything as a clickbot would do.
I then went on the second one, Mamun Rose, and scanned his profile, which also had mostly profile pics and no advertisements: https://www.facebook.com/mamun.rose.92?fref=pb&hc_location=profile_browser
I\u2019m highly confident I can go down the list, but I think this proves the point for those people to whom we boosted our posts in Southeast Asian countries.", "timestamp": "1471540791"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806007103182", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806007103182", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I will check the first 10 names I see for this post now:
https://www.facebook.com/intentionalinsights/posts/1636942333194879", "timestamp": "1471541005"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806008480422", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806008480422", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The first 4 are friends of Gleb/II staff: Shyam Soni, Oghenevowhero Beatrice Sargin, Maw Areneas, and Candice Olivar.
After that I see:
Anik Mahamud, Md Faruk Jcd, PrashAnt ShuKla, Ovimani Tufan, RF Alif, and Rafsan Jamil.
All of their walls seem to have multiple pictures and engagement, looking like real profiles.", "timestamp": "1471541739"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806012986392", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806012986392", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I can't see their likes, so I can't tell if they also do work for click farms, but these don't look like shoddy mass-produced fake accounts to me. [ETA: but it turns out they are clickfarmers, and just better at making profiles than I expected.]", "timestamp": "1471543902"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806013325712", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806013325712", "service": "fb", "text": "→ If you notice any fake accounts, Carl, please let me know, so that I can ban them from the page :-)", "timestamp": "1471544093"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806037871522", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806037871522", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Carl You can see which pages they like if you go to their About page. I checked for a handful that liked one of InIn's recent posts, and they exactly fit the pattern described in the Youtube video \u2013 thousands and thousands of likes of completely random pages.
(Edit: I say thousands and thousands because you unfortunately can't see an actual number, it's just an infinite scroll. I tried reverse engineering the ajax call but facebook's code is super obfuscated. I scrolled for long enough to confirm that \"thousands and thousands\" was accurate.)", "timestamp": "1471552805"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806039508242", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806039508242", "service": "fb", "text": "→ NathanGleb Maybe clickfarms can manage that much after all.", "timestamp": "1471553850"}, {"author": "Gregory", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806039632992", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806039632992", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I confirm the pattern Nathan observes, and I've tried quite a few. Grimly impressed in how lifelike these accounts seem.", "timestamp": "1471553890"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806039782692", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806039782692", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Yes my random audits show clickfarm like patterns.", "timestamp": "1471553942"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806044732772", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806044732772", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb discussed two accounts above, Dkshu Kapoti and Mamun Rose. Looking at the likes, Mamun Rose shoiws the thousands of likes/clickfarm pattern.
Dkshu Kapoti shows fewer but also weird likes: Intentional insights, Nursing News, Italy wedding planner, Tropicana Slice, Engineers stuff, The Hotel School, several universities... also looks clickfarmy.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008619424933...
https://www.facebook.com/mamun.rose.92?fref=pb&hc_location=ufi", "timestamp": "1471555644"}, {"author": "Oliver", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806046609012", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806046609012", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I also chose 5 people at random. 1 of those 5 people had less than 100 likes, all other ones had significantly more, in the range of thousands of likes, with most likes being very random (e.g. random american construction companies). So yeah, most of the people fit the description in the video quite well, with massive amounts of likes without a coherent pattern.
Here are the people I checked:
https://www.facebook.com/miranti.illu/likes...
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005154226828...
https://www.facebook.com/sherly.eizulitaa/likes...
(I lost the other two links by failing my copy-paste, but the pattern is obvious. All three of the above have these very suspicious patterns of likes.)", "timestamp": "1471556352"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806046703822", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806046703822", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb \"If you notice any fake accounts, Carl, please let me know, so that I can ban them from the page :-)\"
Looks like most of them.", "timestamp": "1471556460"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806047003222", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806047003222", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gregory Alasdair Jeff Kaufman Oliver Nathan What would be the best tests for the Twitter and Pinterest accounts?", "timestamp": "1471556621"}, {"author": "Oliver", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806047826572", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806047826572", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I don't have much experience with Twitter, but I think we should be able to take a similar random sample and see what other things they like and share.", "timestamp": "1471556951"}, {"author": "Gregory", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806048325572", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806048325572", "service": "fb", "text": "→ [N.B. This seems likely mistaken, as twitter count seems to iregularly update and then linearly interpolate, giving potentially artefactual linear trends. Although not all groups individuals have this property, sufficiently many do it is implausible they are all buying followers. Mea culpa.]
Oliver: I'm no expert, but apparently diagnostic of clickfarmed twitter followers is very linear changes over time (e.g. +8 followers every day for 10 days straight). http://www.chrisjonesblog.com/.../how-to-spot-people-who...
Gleb's twitter over the past two months (the time I could get data on the twitter counter app) shows these sorts of trends - initially -8 per day, then inverting to +8 per day, then +17 until recently.", "timestamp": "1471557282"}, {"author": "Oliver", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806048360502", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806048360502", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Intentional Insights does not have any Pinterest engagement. All of it's merchandise has less than 10 pins, and the only things on the account that have more are shares of already popular posts:
https://www.pinterest.com/intent.../intentional-merchandise/
It does have 6.6k followers, but I have no idea what that could even mean, since not a single one of its posts has more than 10 pins. Maybe followers mean something different on Pinterest? But my best guess would be some form of clickfarm, though I don't even know why one would care about Pinterest followers who don't pin or share anything.", "timestamp": "1471557328"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806048979262", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806048979262", "service": "fb", "text": "→ For twitter, looking at who likes/retweets their posts is probably relevant. I've been looking, so far it's 1) overall low engagement, 1 or 2 RTs/likes per post, 2) all the likes look like fake accounts (this isn't InIn's fault, my posts get tons of likes from fake accounts, it's just how twitter is), 3) the RTs come from an EA netherlands account and from a guy who apparently RTs 800 things per day. I'm not very far into it, though, will edit with more.
Edit: Also good ol' Sargin is there with some likes/RTs too, though none since two days ago as per Gleb's word.
Edit: One sign of a fake twitter account is duplicate posts, like this guy https://twitter.com/Dx23des
Edit: Once you get back a few days, it's basically the same as the FB page \u2013 every post is liked by Sargin, Shyam, Candice, etc. with no non-InIn-affiliated engagement outside of a few fake accounts.
Went back through beginning of July, that's basically the pattern. InIn staff members like every post, Sargin RTs every post, some fake accounts like as well (standard twitter), and every once in awhile there's something that looks like real engagement. After controlling for staff activity, the overall level of engagement is *way* below what I would expect from a legit account with 12K followers, and the pattern of engagement has way less variance than usual.", "timestamp": "1471557574"}, {"author": "Oliver", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806049368482", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806049368482", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The most striking thing about InIn's twitter page is that it follows over 11,000 other accounts. This confused me at first, but an explanation for why that is the case soon became transparent. A good part of the users InIn is following have the following text in their description:
\"100% followback\"
This refers to accounts who have promised to follow anyone who is following them. And since following a lot of people is easy, this seems like a pretty easy way to get a lot of followers, who will themselves then all follow tens-of-thousands of people, resulting in a massively distorted engagement level.
I haven't yet looked into who actually shares or likes InIn, but Nathan seems to have reported something similar.", "timestamp": "1471557772"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806058624932", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806058624932", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The overall tl;dr appears to be that across facebook, twitter, and pinterest, the level of actual engagement with InIn's content is approximately zero.", "timestamp": "1471561108"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806061683802", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806061683802", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nathan What about the articles appearing in other publications, e.g. the Time article? That was said to have many shares.", "timestamp": "1471562841"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806063016132", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806063016132", "service": "fb", "text": "→ That seems like a pretty separate thing, which I don't know much about. In terms of engagement, I do note that searching for the article's URL on facebook returns only Gleb sharing it, and one person sharing Gleb's post directly, so the article doesn't appear to have really gotten any (publicly-shared) engagement on facebook. [EDIT: Searching for the URL alone misses shorteners and query strings, so I also searched for the title, which turned up an additional 9 shares.] It did better on twitter, with 23 tweets containing the link [EDIT: also likely slightly understated for the same reason], but of those three were InIn-affiliated and three more were EAs / EA orgs, and none of the tweets got significant like/RT engagement. [EDIT: Time's official twitter account's tweet of the article got 28RTs and 24 likes. Looks like bottom quartile for engagement with one of their tweets.] I'm really not a media person, so I have no idea how to estimate how many people saw the article or what impact it had. It does seem like an impressive accomplishment.", "timestamp": "1471563311"}, {"author": "Howie", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806108829322", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806108829322", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Carl A friend of mine once noticed a FB account with a random person's name but several photos of her as their profile picture. I think this might be a tactic the clickfarms use to make the accounts look real.", "timestamp": "1471585247"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806121578772", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806121578772", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Howie Agreed.", "timestamp": "1471593854"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806140091672", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806140091672", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Carl I was re-reading the \"Effective Giving vs. Effective Altruism\" post on the EA Forum and noticed the claim that one of his HuffPo articles (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../how-to-avoid-feeling...) was shared more than a thousand times. Gleb says in that post to look at the sharing buttons for confirmation \u2013 maybe HuffPo changed their site, but for me the buttons have no numbers on them. So I did the same thing of searching facebook and twitter (for both URL and title), and found basically the same results: single-digit numbers of shares on both platforms. This may indicate that my method of searching for engagement is bad, or it may indicate that these posts have been being shared significantly less than we thought.
Edit: Based on Linchuan's numbers below, it sounds like my method of searching for engagement was somewhat bad.", "timestamp": "1471609788"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806162801162", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806162801162", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nathan Looking at II's document of its effective altruism impact evidence the claim was StumbleUpon shares, with no mention of others:
\"the StumbleUpon shares are over 1K, for example\"
Maybe the shares there are incomparable (referring to clicks?) or there was some big asymmetry. I would look into that.
Maybe more important is the claim that 12% of Gleb's readers from elsewhere for TLYCS donate. There are ambiguities and a shortage of clear numbers (like number of donations, money moved). I'd like to see that looked at (and it is certainly relevant to discussions about II's impact how much money it is succeeding at moving).
https://docs.google.com/.../1FnTWEU.../edit", "timestamp": "1471620074"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806164143472", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806164143472", "service": "fb", "text": "→ 12% is surprisingly, shockingly high", "timestamp": "1471620724"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806164542672", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806164542672", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff Kaufman Yes. The TLYCS audience is very disproportionately ready to give, but comparing against the only hard number elsewhere ($500 to GiveDirectly) that is high. One could compare to the conversion rates and #s for other TLYCS articles. Maybe you should ask TLYCS?", "timestamp": "1471620897"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806166937872", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806166937872", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Just sent a question to Rhema and CC'd you.", "timestamp": "1471621782"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806169063612", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806169063612", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I'm confused by what 'StumbleUpon share' even means, I took a look and the 'Share' button in StumbleUpon is a dropdown with options to share on Facebook or Twitter. There is also an option to share directly with an individual who also uses StumbleUpon. Unclear if that's public though, the only number I see available on a given post is number of likes. Also, HuffPo doesn't currently even have a StumbleUpon button (again, maybe they've changed it). Regardless of what is meant, engagement on StumbleUpon is definitely incomparable to engagement on FB/Twitter.", "timestamp": "1471622959"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806169103532", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806169103532", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nathanhttp://help.stumbleupon.com/customer/portal/articles/665198-sharing", "timestamp": "1471623006"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806169128482", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806169128482", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Yes, my understanding of that help article was that you can share with the StumbleUpon accounts of individual friends.", "timestamp": "1471623030"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806170949832", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806170949832", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nathan I don't understand why it would be that a thousand people would actively press that button while so many fewer shared with the broadcast methods, and would probe deeper on both sides of the ledger.", "timestamp": "1471623286"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806172376972", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806172376972", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Carl: that seems similar to how on FB there are an enormous amount of likes but almost no shares?", "timestamp": "1471623939"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806172496732", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806172496732", "service": "fb", "text": "→ And in the FB case, my guess would be because shares show up on your timeline and make your account look fake to casual inspection, while page likes are harder to find and comment/post likes aren't visible.", "timestamp": "1471623985"}, {"author": "Linchuan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806173669382", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806173669382", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The Time article has 100 Tweets, 53 LinkedIn shares, and 471 total Facebook interactions (I think something about FB's API recently changed so I can no longer differentiate between likes/comments/shares)", "timestamp": "1471624600"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806174906902", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806174906902", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Linchuan Stats for this article (the one identified as having 1000+ Stumbleupon shares, I want to doublecheck Nathan's figures)?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../how-to-avoid-feeling...", "timestamp": "1471625147"}, {"author": "Linchuan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806176039632", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806176039632", "service": "fb", "text": "→ 33 Tweets (I've manually checked for different things before, and Twitter tends to be correct, but does not include retweets), 0 LinkedIn, and 238 Facebook interactions.
I'm not 100% sure how Facebook's API does it, it seems to undercount (and I don't see a consistent pattern in how it undercounts. For example, back when one of my interviews was first released, I remember seeing more \"likes\" on a single person sharing that article than the API had total).
I'm most confident in the Tweet figure (since I manually checked with other articles and it tends to work out).
LinkedIn doesn't have global searching enabled and is a total black box to me.", "timestamp": "1471625456"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806176843022", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806176843022", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Linchuan And Stumbleupon?", "timestamp": "1471625666"}, {"author": "Alexander", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806176927852", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806176927852", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Re. share numbers, this rang a bell so I did some searches.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/effective.altruists/permalink/987355164654174/
In a later article Gleb shared to the EA Facebook group he claimed it was shared over two thousand times. Jacy (!) corrected this, the figure he was using actually referred to views not shares.
Edit: In fact, with hindsight I think the EA forum post (and Kerry's response) and that Facebook post (and Jacy's response) were what first put me on 'treat anything Gleb says with deep scepticism' mode. So much has happened since that I'd forgotten about them by the time I wrote my earlier comments in this thread.", "timestamp": "1471625718"}, {"author": "Linchuan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806177406892", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806177406892", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Carl: I have no idea. Sorry I wasn't clear earlier. I don't think Stumbleupon has an API that lets other people query shares, sadly.
http://stackoverflow.com/.../api-for-stumbleupon-get-the...
Alexander: Yeah that sounds like the most likely explanation.", "timestamp": "1471626026"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806177666372", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806177666372", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Of the Time article's 471 interactions, over 100 come from likes on Gleb's personal sharing of the article. It would be really useful to get a clearer picture of the like/share distribution, as we've seen likes are much easier to come by.
Edit: Also, thanks for the better numbers Linchuan, glad to have something more reliable than my fairly naive attempts.", "timestamp": "1471626127"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806178429842", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806178429842", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Thanks Alexander. The upshot is that on January 5, 2016, Jacy told Gleb that he had reported Stumbleupon views as likes:
\"the left Facebook figure is total interactions (likes + shares + comments), the right one is just shares. Most websites just show total count for Facebook (you can check this on their API I linked to above). I think it's just Tweets for Twitter. Not sure about LinkedIn. StumbleUpon says that the badge shows views here. It'd also be pretty weird if an article had 18 shares on one site and 2000 on another \"
Gleb wrote: \"Jacy, cool, thanks for helping me update! Appreciate it :-)\"
However, in his II EA impact documents months later Gleb reported 1000+ Stumbleupon shares for a different article (apparently doing the same thing).
Perhaps it's another example of the painfully specific 'updates' where a bad behavior is only corrected/acknowledged in the maximally specific case. I.e. perhaps Gleb was corrected for using false stats in talking about a particular article, and updated against using those false stats to promote *that particular article* while continuing to use them to promote other articles?
If that's what happened it would be supporting evidence for the many people who have complained that Gleb's 'updates' tend not to address underlying issues.
So I'd like to get very clear on what the correct figures were to see why Gleb later reverted to the reading he had 'updated' against as false, in fundraising documents directed at the EA community.", "timestamp": "1471626525"}, {"author": "Alexander", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806179078542", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806179078542", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Isn't the link* Jacy provided as evidence fairly explicit?
\"Our Badges also show a real-time count of how many times your web page has been viewed by StumbleUpon users.\"
http://help.stumbleupon.com/.../articles/665227-badges
I mean, it's theoretically possible that this was not true for the article Gleb references on 2nd December but true by the discussed article on 28th December, but I would think the onus is *tremendously* on Gleb to explain why he would think that is the case.", "timestamp": "1471626889"}, {"author": "Linchuan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806179462772", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806179462772", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Minor detail: pretty much every website I've seen uses total Facebook interactions and lists them as \"shares\", eg. HuffPost on pc. Now that Facebook's API appears to no longer differentiate (I swear, it worked for me as recently as a week ago), I expect the problem to only get worse.", "timestamp": "1471627101"}, {"author": "Howie", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806191094462", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806191094462", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Low confidence but a possible explanation for the super high 12% figure is that it may come from the data Gleb shared about traffic organizations received from the Time article. https://docs.google.com/.../1w4GPLppt9.../edit...
TLYCS received 16 non-bounced clicks and 2 of them \"signed up for the newsletter or converted in other ways.\" 2/16 = 12.5%.", "timestamp": "1471632601"}, {"author": "Howie", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806191204242", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806191204242", "service": "fb", "text": "→ This would mean shifting around the definition of \"converted\" (the TLYCS employee said converted = donated but the spreadsheet breaks out donations separately) which seems like it could be an honest mistake.
Using \"non-bounced clicks\" in the dominator would be a pretty big problem, though. As well as the small sample size driven by two conversions.", "timestamp": "1471632699"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806191897852", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806191897852", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff Kaufman Howie The phrasing in the II impact document, (suggesting hundreds of conversions/donations rather than two), implies *at least* hundreds of donations per article rather than 2. That's a very important difference in a fundraising document appealing to money moved to effective charities.
Gleb wrote:
\"For instance, here is a quote from Rhema Hokama, the former Director of Communications at The Life You Can Save, indicating that the pieces we published there (7 pieces through March 16, 2016) regularly reach an audience of over 5,000, at least 12% of whom make a donation.\"", "timestamp": "1471632940"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806194288062", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806194288062", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Howie\"Using \"non-bounced clicks\" in the denominator would be a pretty big problem, though.\"
Indeed.
\"As well as the small sample size driven by two conversions.\"
In that spreadsheet the conversion number for ACE is 13/50, 26%, higher than the 2/16 reported for TLYCS.", "timestamp": "1471633698"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805768436472&reply_comment_id=806758197982", "anchor": "fb-805768436472_806758197982", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Oliver A random sample of 10 Pinterest followers gives 10 spam/advertising/clickfarm accounts. The InIn account also follows 20,500 accounts, vs 7000+ following it.
https://www.pinterest.com/borisparr/
https://www.pinterest.com/gabrielledowdq/
https://www.pinterest.com/oradarcusiwz/
https://www.pinterest.com/beautytips70413/
https://www.pinterest.com/evareese302/
https://www.pinterest.com/jacobwelch336/
https://www.pinterest.com/brandon_clarkso/
https://www.pinterest.com/healthabundantl/
https://www.pinterest.com/emmahughes1984/
https://www.pinterest.com/cassondrapinkha/", "timestamp": "1471893808"}, {"author": "Colleen", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272", "anchor": "fb-805807957272", "service": "fb", "text": "I am amazed that with all the critical thinking this subject has produced that no one had given thought or raised any concerns about libel.", "timestamp": "1471434891"}, {"author": "Neil", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805811475222", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805811475222", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I've never heard of a successful libel suit for anything in a discussion like this, at least under US law.", "timestamp": "1471437078"}, {"author": "Colleen", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805811774622", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805811774622", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Beautiful thing about law is there is always a first.", "timestamp": "1471437339"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805815038082", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805815038082", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nothing in this thread is remotely close to libel. Essentially, if the gist of a statement is true, it cannot be libel. Minor factual inaccuracies (e.g. Jeff mixing up the timeline) are irrelevant. Statements of pure opinion (e.g. claims that Gleb isn't the right person to lead an outreach org) also cannot be libel. While you're right that there could be a first example of a facebook thread that leads to a successful libel suit, this is definitely not it.", "timestamp": "1471439023"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805848291442", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805848291442", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Nathan: That matches my (amateur) understanding of US libel law, but it's different in other countries. For example, I belive in the UK something harmful can be libelous even if it's true.", "timestamp": "1471456020"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805853071862", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805853071862", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Even in the UK, my understanding is that truth can be used as a defense; though it is the defendant's burden to show that the statement is true. Good point though that the specifics do vary by jurisdiction.", "timestamp": "1471457648"}, {"author": "Angela", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805864548862", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805864548862", "service": "fb", "text": "→ UK libel laws are MUCH laxer than U.S., to the point where there's an entire phenomenon called \"libel tourism\" where people (often rich Saudi businessmen, for example) take libel cases to the UK instead of their original country because they're so much easier to win. (Ah, the things you learn in media law!) In the UK, burden of proof rests with the journalist, not the person making the claim. That said, I highly, highly doubt anything here is libelous.", "timestamp": "1471464805"}, {"author": "Ruthan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805868031882", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805868031882", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I'm imagining really hard about what it would be like if it were illegal to be anything less than completely complimentary without witnesses to hand.", "timestamp": "1471466970"}, {"author": "Colleen", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805868176592", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805868176592", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Perhaps it wouldn't qualify. Perhaps it would. My speculation was more a comment of \"why risk it?\" If comments made here (some of which are from individuals in the UK) cause financial losses for InIn by deterring previously committed donors, looking into a libel case would not be an illogical step. So why risk it? Are you so sure your ethics are above reproach? Are you that confident your opinions/ accusations are truth? Are you that arrogant to think you know the motivation and heart of a man because you've clicked on names who liked a post or exchanged emails or even took a meeting with him? Are you that egotistical to think it is your duty to publicly air refuted ideas that can and may irrevocably damage a man's reputation and career? No need to answer any of these questions as your previous comments already have, unless, of course, you didn't consider any of it, in which case I would recommend spending time in self reflection before pointing fingers at others.", "timestamp": "1471467101"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805869154632", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805869154632", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \u2026 Seriously, it's not a risk. The US passed specific legislation in response to the libel tourism Angela mentioned (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act), and the UK significantly reformed their defamation laws in 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013).
That's all beside the point, though, because your motivation for posting clearly has nothing to do with libel. You think the people in this thread have been arrogant, and unfair in their treatment of Gleb. That's a reasonable opinion; it would be better expressed without the distractions about libel laws.", "timestamp": "1471467683"}, {"author": "Colleen", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805871734462", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805871734462", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nathan- actually, my first comment was motivated by the thought of libel. It was the utter lack of concern that any previous comments may have been over stepping that lead me to my second comment. I do enjoy the bit where you presume to know what motivates me on the basis of 2 FB comments.", "timestamp": "1471468482"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805872103722", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805872103722", "service": "fb", "text": "→ It was just the one comment, actually :)
There's a weird common perception that people should worry about defamation laws in their ordinary lives. That perception silences people. It's also really inaccurate, especially in the US. I think being very clear about that is important, but I'm sorry if the way that I did so was impolite.", "timestamp": "1471468636"}, {"author": "Bernadette", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805874399122", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805874399122", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I suspect that this post and the comments on it are the result of a large number of people having concerns that they have kept quiet about for a long time, at least partially because it seems unkind and unjust to denounce somebody on their individual concerns. Jeff's post here (which was just reformatting a publicly conducted discussion) appears to have tipped the balance for a lot of people to speak up. The fact it's happened on Jeff's blog and not, say, one of the public forums where Gleb promotes his work and solicits donations is probably further evidence people are keeping it somewhat contained. So yes, I think most people posting here did indeed think long and hard about the implications both of what they've said and of continuing to keep quiet.", "timestamp": "1471469644"}, {"author": "Gregory", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805878246412", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805878246412", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I live in the UK, I'd be entirely happy having written any of the comments on this fb post from a 'will I get sued for defamation' perspective: the comments are comfortably defensible on the grounds of fair comment (which extends to remarks that could be reasonably made by someone who intensely disliked gleb), or truth.
TBH Colleen, I agree with Nathan your motivations appear to be transparently about defending your friend gleb, and ham-fisted concern trolling about defamation is your preferred metier.", "timestamp": "1471470770"}, {"author": "Colleen", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805880601692", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805880601692", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gregory- I find your honest comment of calling me a liar to be unfounded as I am the only one who can speak to my motivation. I find it interesting you assume Gleb and I are friends because of a FB connection. Assumptions backed by pseudo-intellectualism elitism; aren't you all tired of that being the legacy of the secular movement?
Yes- I trolled. I trolled initially because I couldn't understand why intelligent ppl would risk the appearance of libel especially when speaking about the ethics of another. I told myself I won't respond to any further comments but found myself frustrated once again by the secular movement placing the idea of rationalism above all else. It's tiring, it's isolating, and it will keep secularism from spreading to mainstream.
Again, no need to respond since I do not expect any of you to admit that there might be truth in what I say. No need to respond as I am not going to follow the thread any further. If you rationally believe there is a reason to converse more with me, PM me. Good night and be kind to each other. I admit I have failed at that today. But I will try again tomorrow.", "timestamp": "1471471803"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805883715452", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805883715452", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I'd note for EAs that the poster of the concern trolling is not a member of this FB group, shows only one mutual FB friend (Gleb) despite the presence of hundreds of EAs in my friends list, and shows no relevant wall posts.", "timestamp": "1471474005"}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805920197342", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805920197342", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Bernadette, you are correct about why I didn't previously criticize Intentional Insights and why I'm criticizing it now, and I expect if you're right about me then you're probably right about other people.", "timestamp": "1471489436"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805959313952", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805959313952", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Bernadette's point is quite excellent. I think there might've been a second (smaller) factor, which is that Gleb's writing in general is labour-intensive to respond to - he doesn't himself optimise for the important points (either he doesn't realise he should, or he's not aware of what's important) and thus it's quite easy to glance off interactions with him. I think this helped in preventing things becoming common knowledge about our common discomfort with his activities.", "timestamp": "1471510899"}, {"author": "Arjun", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=805963570422", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_805963570422", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Ben, can you explain more what you mean by Gleb's (tagging for courtesy rather than to ask for a response) writing not optimizing for important points and it being easy to \"glance off interactions with him\"?", "timestamp": "1471517344"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=806038220822", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_806038220822", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Arjun If you give someone a direct criticism, and they respond with several paragraphs which don't quite respond accurately, most people will realise it's a helluva lot of work to find the exact disagreement, and by no explicit choice, just not have effort and time to give a response. My model is that Gleb starts writing pretty instinctively, without putting much effort into understanding the person's points, and just writes about things that are related to the topic.", "timestamp": "1471553098"}, {"author": "Arjun", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=806038505252", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_806038505252", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Okay, thanks for explaining", "timestamp": "1471553248"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805807957272&reply_comment_id=806038669922", "anchor": "fb-805807957272_806038669922", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Also, often in good-faith communication, there's a thing whereby you signal that you've put in at least as much effort into understanding someone's position as you're requesting of them in response. Gleb often doesn't do this, just writes a lot of related things, and one never gets the feeling that he has attempted to really understand what you're saying, just react to it. This also sends a subconscious signal of \"this is not a conversation where my effort will in fact get turned into good communication\".", "timestamp": "1471553381"}, {"author": "Konrad", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442", "anchor": "fb-805847293442", "service": "fb", "text": "I have had a pretty insightful but short exchange with Gleb, late 2015. I feel like I am needed as an additional data point and this needs to be expressed unmistakably, so the following might sound a little harsh. I'm part of the camp \"Gleb, please stop, I'm glad you have not been doing severe harm to EA with InIn yet. I think promoting GGs is a good thing but you might be better off doing that exclusively under the name of TLYCS.\"
_______
I was interested in InIn at first because you, Gleb, keep talking about marketing EA to different countries/cultures/demographics. So I skyped with you. That skype was a warning to me as you kept talking about yourself, your credentials and science. But you didn't show me any science. What you showed me was someone living in a bubble who hadn't understood the world around him the way one would need to, to get into marketing. So I told you, that you can put me on the newsletter and I joined the \"Insiders\" group because I was a little scared this project would cause decent harm if it gained traction.
Soon after, InIn started to design tshirts. Tshirts that no one I know would wear. Worse probably, tshirts people would make fun of. People voiced criticism very friendly at first and after having realised that InIn just kept going, a few people got more direct - that was the moment Gleb shifted from promoting EA to solely promoting effective giving. It got clear that a lot of people were kind of shocked at what InIn put out with so much conviction - things most of us would not dare to publish. I discussed it with a few people and decided to not be too alarmist, after all it seemed to be a very small circle of people who were really convinced.
At some point I got tired of Gleb's need to put his name and especially his title(s) in every message, article and email, so I unfollowed it all. By then I had been fairly confident, that the fanbase is not really expanding and the approach not really gaining traction and that there was a fair amount of criticism. Everything I would have added to that discussion would have been pure negativity, like Alasdair dared to do now, so I thought that wouldn't be useful. I now feel the need to voice this negativity, suddenly it might seem. But three or four days ago I stumbled across Gleb's book on amazon and was flabbergasted. In combination with this post it's given me a final push. Read the reviews: https://www.amazon.com/.../ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt_rgt...
I feel like people have tried to, and still are trying to, stay friendly because that's the nice thing to do. We're civilised and everyone is well-intentioned, no doubts about that. But I don't want to have to say things in a roundabout way anymore because I haven't seen any real updating from Gleb. His move from promoting EA to simply replacing that term with effective giving shows how he really doesn't (want to) understand (cf. The InIn YT channel, interview with Tee). He seems resistant to all other constructive criticism ever since and guards himself with the ever same numbers and repeats the ever same justifications and especially the demand for more evidence, emphasising that he is open to update if we show him evidence. All of that to just afterwards continue like nothing happened, like those incidents aren't evidence themselves.", "timestamp": "1471455511"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442&reply_comment_id=805854583832", "anchor": "fb-805847293442_805854583832", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Note that he describes himself as a \"best selling author\", that all of the 1 star reviews are verified but only 8/14 5 stars are (and one of those is Sarkin). Since it's a kindle book, there are a very limited number of ways you could read it without Amazon knowing.", "timestamp": "1471458781"}, {"author": "Bernadette", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442&reply_comment_id=805855656682", "anchor": "fb-805847293442_805855656682", "service": "fb", "text": "→ It's possible he shared a pdf copy of the book with employees of InIn, but agreed, this looks like the same pattern as elsewhere: people with a financial interest in the success of Gleb and InIn endorsing his work without disclosing that interest.", "timestamp": "1471459639"}, {"author": "Mat\u012bss", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442&reply_comment_id=805893605632", "anchor": "fb-805847293442_805893605632", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Oh, man, I remember those really bad t-shirts (https://facebook.com/groups/localea/permalink/1182573298438678). What left me even more disturbed was Gleb's lack of social intuition about taste/class/aesthetics (among other things like feedback and updating now pointed out by Owen, Nathan et al), which initially seeded my distrust about his competence in running an EA outreach project like InIn. And if you check the comments for this particular t-shirt thread (there are about a dozen like these on Facebook), there's dubious social proof going on with volunteer support in favor of the t-shirts which was being called out by Oliver. I've genuinely enjoyed some pieces of Gleb's work, but nonetheless I also agree with a lot of what has been said here and subscribe to the camp standing for Gleb/InIn quitting its operation.", "timestamp": "1471478254"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442&reply_comment_id=805916699352", "anchor": "fb-805847293442_805916699352", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Elizabeth Konrad Bernadette for best-seller, here is a screenshot of my book on the top lists of Cog Sci and Atheist, where is stayed for a couple of weeks after its release: http://imgur.com/a/JyA0n", "timestamp": "1471487945"}, {"author": "Arjun", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442&reply_comment_id=805962297972", "anchor": "fb-805847293442_805962297972", "service": "fb", "text": "→ ^To clarify, that image shows that it was #1 in the Atheism and Cognitive Psychology (not Cog Sci) Kindle eBooks sections of the Kindle store.", "timestamp": "1471515014"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442&reply_comment_id=805963740082", "anchor": "fb-805847293442_805963740082", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Arjun yup, good point, thanks for correcting that :-)", "timestamp": "1471517435"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442&reply_comment_id=805969458622", "anchor": "fb-805847293442_805969458622", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Gleb: If your contractors had not been writing 5-star reviews for your book, do you think it would still have been #1 in those categories?", "timestamp": "1471522123"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442&reply_comment_id=806007118152", "anchor": "fb-805847293442_806007118152", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Arjun to clarify, this is the image showing the book being top in behavioral sciences: http://imgur.com/a/TewAC", "timestamp": "1471541027"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442&reply_comment_id=806007527332", "anchor": "fb-805847293442_806007527332", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff Kaufman of the first 10 reviews of the book, only 1 was from someone getting any money from Intentional Insights. As you can see, the book was #1 in cognitive psychology and atheist when it had 9 reviews. This is information that would have been easy to find out if you had checked before asking this question ;-)", "timestamp": "1471541246"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442&reply_comment_id=806011224922", "anchor": "fb-805847293442_806011224922", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Your first 10 reviews (time of the screenshot) averaged 4.8, but the next 11 averaged just 3.3. That's suspicious.
Additionally, only 8 of the 14 current 5-star reviews are \"verified purchase\" which is surprising, since this is a Kindle book and Amazon should know who bought it. It's especially surprising given that all three 1-star reviews are \"verified purchase\".
Could it be that your contractors are buying fake reviews for you, indirectly?", "timestamp": "1471543087"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442&reply_comment_id=806011589192", "anchor": "fb-805847293442_806011589192", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff Kaufman, I'm uncomfortable with you moving the goalposts, and not indicating that you updated on my previous statement. Have you updated? I'd be much more comfortable having a discussion that doesn't feel like a confrontation, and that requires a certain acknowledgment and updating based on previous points :-)", "timestamp": "1471543270"}, {"author": "Malcolm", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442&reply_comment_id=806028654992", "anchor": "fb-805847293442_806028654992", "service": "fb", "text": "→ This article points out that becoming a best-selling author on Amazon means even less than the average cynic would assume. Not all of it is that relevant here, but it seemed worth linking to: http://observer.com/.../behind-the-scam-what-does-it.../", "timestamp": "1471549589"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442&reply_comment_id=806032731822", "anchor": "fb-805847293442_806032731822", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Gleb: \"Have you updated?\"
Have I updated based on you claiming that only one of the first ten reviews was someone you pay? Not really. I do think you believe the words you wrote to be literally true, but I don't think they're actually true. Maybe you don't recognize the Amazon usernames of some of your contractors, like you didn't recognize Nyor Hoype's name above. Maybe you didn't explicitly ask your contractors to buy you reviews, but they realized this would be good for InIn and they made it happen. Maybe you traded reviews with other authors. At this point when you say things I don't take them at face value anymore, and both the reviews and the review details look fishy.", "timestamp": "1471550324"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442&reply_comment_id=806039228802", "anchor": "fb-805847293442_806039228802", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff Kaufman, glad you believe I believe they are literally true. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the matter at hand. Maybe you want to look up the profiles of the people who reviewed the book, and see if any of them are real?", "timestamp": "1471553683"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442&reply_comment_id=806167376992", "anchor": "fb-805847293442_806167376992", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Being a bestselling author on Amazon isn't a big deal (http://observer.com/.../behind-the-scam-what-does-it.../)", "timestamp": "1471622059"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805847293442&reply_comment_id=806826536032", "anchor": "fb-805847293442_806826536032", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I asked Gleb about the book sales. He said that in the first two weeks 50 books were sold for $3 each, and 500+ were given away. Cumulatively ~500 books have been sold for ~$1500 total, and 3500+ free copies have been downloaded.
By contrast, newspaper bestseller lists require mid-high thousands of copies sold in the first week (not given away for free).
Traditional bestseller status would be major evidence of writing and communication skills, but would involve radically higher sales numbers.
So this would tend to exaggerate his skills to readers.", "timestamp": "1471921325"}, {"author": "Jacob", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805853900202", "anchor": "fb-805853900202", "service": "fb", "text": "Purely based on the criticism here and how Gleb has reacted to that criticism, I intend to distrust anything Gleb does in the future, since he has shown himself to be, at best, incompetent to the degree of sabotage.
I was only vaguely aware of Gleb and InIn before. I held my tongue because I didn't think I had anything to add, but I think that the lack of comments along these lines may be distorting people's impressions. Since I still don't think it adds much, I'd suggest anyone with similar sentiments just like this comment rather than write a new one.", "timestamp": "1471458322"}, {"author": "Nick", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805853900202&reply_comment_id=805855427142", "anchor": "fb-805853900202_805855427142", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"Intend to distrust anything\" seems like a really needless and needlessly negative degree of commitment to not updating, but basically agreed.", "timestamp": "1471459446"}, {"author": "Jacob", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805853900202&reply_comment_id=805857847292", "anchor": "fb-805853900202_805857847292", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I don't consider 'distrust' to be absolute. The fact of his involvement will make me question any project more, and my model of him is more likely to improve his ability to signal shared goals and competence than to actually have fixed the problems that made me distrust him, so it will take more concrete evidence of success, and testimony from people I do trust, to get me to update away from him being harmful.", "timestamp": "1471460750"}, {"author": "Julia", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805859588802", "anchor": "fb-805859588802", "service": "fb", "text": "I'm personally very uncomfortable with the \"spammy\" approach, and agree that II fits that bill.
I can theoretically imagine crossing some threshold of evidence that would cause me to accept that the \"spammy\" approach was strategically justified (assuming it still stayed on the right side of the \"not deceptive or underhanded\" line).
However, that threshold is very high. I would need to see good evidence for something like the following list of claims:
(1) That a spammy approach brings in lots of new people,
(2) That those new people add significant value to EA, and
(3) That the spammy approach isn't actively turning off other people who would have added more value to EA.
Note that \"value\" here includes not just money donated, but also value to the intellectual culture of EA, which I think is extremely important as EA grows.
I have a pretty low prior on those three claims being true, and I don't think that II has presented much evidence for them; so far I basically only see Gleb arguing for (1), and that's not good enough for me.", "timestamp": "1471461807"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805859588802&reply_comment_id=805925416882", "anchor": "fb-805859588802_805925416882", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I agree that having an approach that targets the audience of Lifehack and Huffington Post, which people on this thread perceive as spammy, is not the best thing for promoting EA. In fact, I have some doubts about whether EA should be actively promoted at all, as I describe here: http://lesswrong.com/.../effective_giving_vs_effective.../ Much better to orient toward careful movement growth while promoting the message of effective giving to a broad audience.", "timestamp": "1471492263"}, {"author": "Claire", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862", "anchor": "fb-805867043862", "service": "fb", "text": "I agree with most of this but wished people had focused more on things that increase or detract from the community. Whoever else this stuff reaches, a lot of the content and discussion took place in EA or adjacent (e.g. LessWrong) forums. II took up people\u2019s time and energy (more than most orgs and initiatives do), and had an opportunity cost for them. I feel that Gleb did not carefully consider this opportunity cost/the externalities of his actions when posting unusually large amounts of content. I don\u2019t know if he asked why other groups had a different approach, but I would have in his position.
It seems to me that Gleb evinced a lack of respect for other members of the LessWrong and EA communities by engaging in more self-promotion than others did. If he had been more respectful, I think he would have had more faith in the marketplace of ideas that exists in those forums, more interest in making sure his content didn\u2019t accidentally overrun better content because he was giving it an unfair advantage, and more investment in affirming norms that make the community strong, fair, and useful.
Actions like his make it bit by bit a little more wrong for a person to trust the community, a little more vexing to get accurate information, and decreases the amount still left to lose by also defecting.
Our community has basically no defenses against this sort of thing. That\u2019s why Gleb is one of the people with the highest karma on the EA Forum. I want us to have trustworthy discussion forums where people\u2019s views aren\u2019t systematically manipulated, and am grateful for people like Jeff that make this possible. I used to think that we need to defend our with intellectual communities with fierceness (a la http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/), and now much more strongly believe that\u2019s true.
(speaking for myself, not my employer)", "timestamp": "1471466372"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=805887353162", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_805887353162", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"Our community has basically no defenses against this sort of thing. That\u2019s why Gleb is one of the people with the highest karma on the EA Forum.\"
Gleb I'll ask directly: have you or your employees and associates been using multiple accounts per user or coordinated voting to influence karma scores on the EA forum or LessWrong?", "timestamp": "1471475077"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=805888565732", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_805888565732", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Carl and Claire I have never asked my employees to use multiple accounts or anything like that on the EA Forum or LW. I naturally do share with InIn participants in the Intentional Insights FB group and other channels when I make posts, and ask them for their feedback, either in the FB group or on the EA Forum if they have accounts. Their feedback may include them voting their conscience on those posts.", "timestamp": "1471475724"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=805889159542", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_805889159542", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb So would you agree with a prediction that most of your karma on both forums stems from accounts controlled by II employees?", "timestamp": "1471475983"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=805889918022", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_805889918022", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Carl, first, please avoid using terms like employees. InIn does not have any. The only people we pay are people who start off by volunteering and then have skills that we identify as useful and start asking them to do contracting work. Second, no idea - I can't determine the karma of my accounts. I know that some of my posts received way more upvotes that people we pay money to do contracting work, for instance this one: http://effective-altruism.com/.../support_promoting.../", "timestamp": "1471476291"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=805893056732", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_805893056732", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb My prediction is that an analysis of karma will reveal manipulation by people paid by II, in light of the comments, likes, shares, Amazon reviews, etc. As Bernadette said above:
\"this looks like the same pattern as elsewhere: people with a financial interest in the success of Gleb and InIn endorsing his work without disclosing that interest.\"
And as Claire says, this subverts the function of reviews/karma/likes/commments as organic indicators of quality in your favor at the expense of other content.
\"I know that some of my posts received way more upvotes that people we pay money to do contracting work, for instance this one\"
This may be, but if some of them are using multiple accounts, in line with spammy tactics elsewhere, there is no upper bound on their contribution.", "timestamp": "1471477908"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=805893730382", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_805893730382", "service": "fb", "text": "→ To repeat something from a subthread I think most people haven't read: on many of InIn's facebook posts, the same InIn staff member (I hope that term's ok) has shared the same post as many as four times (resulting in a post that, if not looked at closely, appears to have been shared by four people). My understanding is that Gleb's position is that this was voluntary enthusiasm. If this person expresses voluntary enthusiasm that way, I would almost be surprised if they didn't use multiple accounts on services that don't make it hard to do so.", "timestamp": "1471478337"}, {"author": "Owen", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=805895691452", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_805895691452", "service": "fb", "text": "→ My prediction is no (or little) abuse of multiple accounts. I read most of the inappropriate behaviour as people thinking that something was okay because it wasn't obviously obviously wrong, and I think multiple accounts might cross that line.
I'm not very confident in that, though.", "timestamp": "1471478855"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=805918046652", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_805918046652", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Carl Nathan Owen I have no interest in using tactics like multiple accounts, fake names, etc. and as leader of InIn, I can attest that it will terminate its relationship with any volunteers or contractors who do things like that. As I said, when I make a post on the EA Forum and LW I will let people who are involved with InIn know about it, for their consideration, and explicitly don't ask them to upvote - I encourage them to engage based on their conscience. If we had multiple accounts and manipulation, then this kind of thing would not happen: http://effective-altruism.com/.../the_valentines_day.../ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nlt/may_outreach_thread/ This kind of evidence is easy to find if you take the time to consider the situation and look around before making accusations, Carl and Nathan. So please update and withdraw your claims, or provide solid evidence for why this sort of thing would happen with manipulation. Thanks!", "timestamp": "1471488371"}, {"author": "Gregory", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=805955531532", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_805955531532", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb: Do you anticipate any conflict of interest when you ask people in low income countries to whom you pay money to engage with your posts \"based on their conscience?\"
Does the same story apply to book reviews on Amazon, for example?", "timestamp": "1471503538"}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=805960431712", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_805960431712", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb \"explicitly don't ask them to upvote\"... I guess that's technically true?", "timestamp": "1471513051"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=805964648262", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_805964648262", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Josh I did exactly what I stated I did - I bring them to the attention of people and encourage people to engage without asking for upvotes.", "timestamp": "1471518107"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=805965541472", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_805965541472", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Like Josh said, that is technically true. Things can be technically true while still being highly misleading. You say things in that category with remarkable consistency. This causes my system 1 to perceive you as deeply untrustworthy.", "timestamp": "1471518966"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=805970182172", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_805970182172", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Transcribing Josh's screenshot, for people who need that:
Gleb writing in the Intentional Insights Insiders facebook group:
\"We published it on the blog of TLYCS, on the EA forum, and on LessWrong, and I strongly encourage those of you with EA Forum and LessWrong accounts to vote/comment on the pieces there, and leave comments on the blog of TLYCS
[links snipped]
PS: Remember, there are plenty of folks hostile to Intentional Insights mission of getting messages about effective giving to a broad audience, and they frequently downvote our posts regardless of the content of the post. You can make a difference through your votes :-)\"", "timestamp": "1471522477"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=806007886612", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_806007886612", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nathan, it's super-optimal to avoid emotional reasoning in situations where one has a horns effect toward a person or a cause because of System 1 reasons :-) I stated exactly what I did earlier, and was very clear about it.", "timestamp": "1471541394"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=806008485412", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_806008485412", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Reporting my system 1 response isn't emotional reasoning. If I had followed what I said with something like \"and therefore I think X\", that would have been emotional reasoning.
In any case, your reiteration that you stated exactly what you did and were very clear leads me to believe that you think I want some kind of defense from you. I really don't. I'm mainly posting things like the comment you replied to to ensure that responses like mine are common knowledge rather than only mutual knowledge.", "timestamp": "1471541747"}, {"author": "Alex", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=806119273392", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_806119273392", "service": "fb", "text": "→ That screenshot doesn't show that \"explicitly don't ask them to upvote\" was technically true but misleading; it shows that it was false. If you interpret it charitably, you could argue that the screenshot doesn't ask for upvotes, even though it does directly ask for votes, and strongly implies pressure and expectation that they be upvotes. But if you *explicitly* don't ask for something, that means you make it clear that you aren't asking for it, and that screenshot shows Gleb doing the opposite of that, namely asking for upvotes as clearly as possible while still leaving a way for him to argue that he didn't technically ask for upvotes.", "timestamp": "1471592761"}, {"author": "Sally", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805867043862&reply_comment_id=806126748412", "anchor": "fb-805867043862_806126748412", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb This is getting ridiculous. You are clearly asking people to upvote your posts. It seems like you may be doing this because you believe your posts are being unfairly treated by other people not well-attuned to the sensitivities of your target audience, so you want to give them a better chance. This won't create a fair reflection of the real popularity of your content, however, if your 'likes' are so proactively recruited compared to your 'dislikes'. Your target audience are perfectly well aware of how to 'upvote' your content and don't need reminders. Asking for the 'honest' opinion of people who are currently paid by you, or expect that with good click-work they may in future be paid by you, in large sums relative to their base salary, is clearly risky, and you clearly should take their likes with a serious heap of salt. Stepping back, you are consistently being so excessively charitable to your own way of seeing past events, and so unwilling to take on board the overwhelming feedback of masses of very thoughtful, well-intentioned, cautious people. Still don't think you might be viewing this through rose-tinted (/covered) spectacles? Is there no way to take this criticism on board and move forwards with a better-informed strategy?", "timestamp": "1471600816"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632", "anchor": "fb-805885122632", "service": "fb", "text": "Gleb's employees have also provided 5 star reviews to his book on Amazon without identifying themselves:
https://www.amazon.com/.../ref=cm_cr_arp_d_show_all...", "timestamp": "1471474298"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805886200472", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805886200472", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Looking at the reviewing patterns (and other books) makes clear these reviews are not organic. E.g. see these Sargin reviews (identified as an II employee elsewhere):
https://www.amazon.com/.../AY73BC.../ref=cm_cr_getr_d_pdp...", "timestamp": "1471474431"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805889204452", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805889204452", "service": "fb", "text": "→ No one was asked to leave reviews of my book - if they did so, they did so voluntarily. I didn't give them guidance on how to leave reviews. And some weren't contractors at the time when they left reviews, we emailed out early copies to volunteers.", "timestamp": "1471475997"}, {"author": "Gregory", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805893530782", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805893530782", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb, the same way they voluntarily work 2 extra hours for every hour you pay them for?", "timestamp": "1471478214"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805893905032", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805893905032", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb If the VAs stopped doing the 2 'volunteer' hours per 'contractor' hour, would you terminate or reduce their contracting payments?", "timestamp": "1471478519"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805898490842", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805898490842", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb previously wrote: \"We only take on as contractors people who are passionate about the cause, have benefited personally from the content, and volunteer at least 2/3 of their time or more.\"", "timestamp": "1471480207"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805899374072", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805899374072", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff Kaufman Gleb That definition doesn't seem like it would fly under U.S. law.
\"Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), individuals who provide services without any expectation of compensation are \"volunteers.\"...The DOL has provided some guidance as to when an employee of a nonprofit organization may volunteer at the same organization where he or she is employed. Specifically, the DOL has taken the position that employees may not volunteer to provide services for the nonprofit organization that are \"the same as, similar, or related to\" their regular job duties. As a general example, a school custodian may not volunteer to empty the trash cans after a basketball game, but he or she may volunteer to coach the team. The DOL also has stated nonprofit organizations cannot request or direct employees to perform volunteer work during the employee's normal working hours, even if the requested volunteer duties are not the same as or similar to the employee's regular job duties.\"
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx...", "timestamp": "1471480496"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805900841132", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805900841132", "service": "fb", "text": "→ There's a subthread near the top where Kate brought this up yesterday, there's some uncertainty around the contractor/employee distinction. I certainly hope InIn sought some legal advice before adopting this approach, as this setup does sound unorthodox and very plausibly illegal.", "timestamp": "1471481024"}, {"author": "Gregory", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805901015782", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805901015782", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Irregardless of the legal matters, I take the opportunity to note it is scummy as hell.", "timestamp": "1471481127"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805901459892", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805901459892", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nathan My interest is not primarily in the legalities, but the supposed volunteering. Gleb used the claim that these people volunteer 2/3rds of their time to argue that they were engaged in deceptive practices out of sheer enthusiasm and not financial interest.
Insofar as it was part of their paid responsibilities it indicates that was actively misleading.", "timestamp": "1471481318"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805916040672", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805916040672", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Carl I'm trying to understand what you might see as misleading. Of the people we take as contractors, we only do those who are already enthusiastic volunteers. We tell them that we would like them to work extra time besides their volunteering for payment. In that time, they do tasks that are less fun and engaging than those activities they do in their volunteering and that engage skills they do in their more professional activities. For instance, we have someone who does editing and writing on her volunteer time, and blog back management on her work time. Help me understand what you see as misleading, please.", "timestamp": "1471487544"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805916614522", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805916614522", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb If they stop volunteering, then what happens?", "timestamp": "1471487884"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805921065602", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805921065602", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Carl never happened. One thing that did happen was that we had to cut our budget, and stop paying a contractor. He stayed on as a volunteer.", "timestamp": "1471490041"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805921539652", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805921539652", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Say John told you he would like to stop volunteering, but continue in his role as a contractor. What would you do?", "timestamp": "1471490159"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805922642442", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805922642442", "service": "fb", "text": "→ That's a silly sort of question, Jeff Kaufman. Something very serious would have had to happen if he did that which would change his relationship to the organization. So this would be far from the only thing that would happen in this case. I would have to understand the new context and consider how to go on from there. Now, say he told me that he needed to make some money on the side because he had a financial difficulty, and had to cut his volunteer hours until he paid it off. That would be totally fine, and in fact has happened to our contractors.", "timestamp": "1471490405"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805923874972", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805923874972", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I don't think this is a silly counterfactual at all, Gleb. It's important for understanding whether the volunteer work John and others do for you is actually because they honestly want to, or if it's just unpaid overtime. So imagine John or another contractor writes to you and says:
\"I wanted to let you know that I've decided to stop volunteering for InIn. I appreciate the contract work you're giving me, and I'd like to keep helping you with InIn's vital mission, but I'm no longer willing to effectively work additional hours without additional pay.\"", "timestamp": "1471490879"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805923999722", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805923999722", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"Of the people we take as contractors, we only do those who are already enthusiastic volunteers.\"
When do they find this out?", "timestamp": "1471491075"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805924264192", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805924264192", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Carl it's a matter of an ongoing relationship - as we engage with a volunteer, vet her/him and find that person trustworthy and possessing needed skills, we offer to have them do additional work with pay.", "timestamp": "1471491363"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805924713292", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805924713292", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff Kaufman, I told you my answer clearly above. If John had money troubles, he could easily come to me and ask me to cut down on volunteering time. This is the only imaginable scenario, and it's something that happened.
I also think you\u2019re not quite recognizing what\u2019s going on here in terms of pay. The people who are contractors for InIn started off as volunteers, and could easily be making much more money elsewhere. John Chavez is one of the biggest supporters of the organization, as well as a part-time contractor. He volunteers for 45 hours a week, and gets paid for 15 hours a week at a rate of $300 per four weeks. Separately, he used to donate $50 per month to the organization, and about 3 months ago upped it to $100 a month. I'm so impressed with how much he's donating. Proportionally to income, he's the biggest donor to the organization after myself and my wife. He\u2019d be on the Board if he wasn\u2019t getting paid. He\u2019s super-enthusiastic about the positive impact of the organization.", "timestamp": "1471491780"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805931379932", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805931379932", "service": "fb", "text": "→ If that was so (\"could easily be making much more money elsewhere\"), it would reduce my estimate of the magnitude of pay-for-play in the deceptive marketing practices. Working for an organization can still powerfully shape behavior even if not lucrative relative to previous jobs, e.g. GiveWell's astroturfing happened despite the principals having formerly held higher paying jobs at a hedge fund.
But given the steady flow of additional revelations today, it's hard for me to be confident that this is the full story.", "timestamp": "1471494927"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805933141402", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805933141402", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Carl any of the people who are contracted at Intentional Insights can be getting paid way more elsewhere. They generally take a large pay cut to work for us. And I hear you about the problems at GiveWell - as Jacy said, what we have been doing is not astroturfing, we are not asking people to do these sorts of activities in their paid time. However, given the concerns expressed here, I have asked them to not do it in their non-paid, free time either.", "timestamp": "1471495374"}, {"author": "Kate", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=805975506502", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_805975506502", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Sorry, Gleb, but did you just make the claim that John spends 60 hours per week (that is, working ten hours a day for six days, or twelve hours a day per five days) doing *exclusively* InIn work? (Volunteering and paid)
(I considered letting the above stand on its own, but I've worked in social media/blogging for more than one nonprofit, done contract work like what you're describing for another, and all of them easily several times the size of II. 60 hours devoted time per week? Every week? This seems unlikely to say the least)", "timestamp": "1471526700"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805885122632&reply_comment_id=806008470442", "anchor": "fb-805885122632_806008470442", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Kate yup, that's what John does. I accept that you find it unlikely, but nothing I can do about it. We have a lot of social media accounts to manage - about 8 in total :-) We also post on about 7 different outlets with some regularity. That takes a lot of work.", "timestamp": "1471541718"}, {"author": "David", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805895771292", "anchor": "fb-805895771292", "service": "fb", "text": "I recognize that explicit feedback is seen as a virtue here, but I'm not convinced it's a good idea to provide tactical advice to scammers on how to appear less scammy.", "timestamp": "1471478887"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805895771292&reply_comment_id=805924214292", "anchor": "fb-805895771292_805924214292", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Calling someone a scammer is a strong claim :-) Are you sure it's warranted? Can it be that just because the content doesn't appeal to you, you perceive it as scammy?", "timestamp": "1471491290"}, {"author": "Arjun", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805895771292&reply_comment_id=805961774022", "anchor": "fb-805895771292_805961774022", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I share concerns about InIn, but I agree with Gleb that calling him a scammer seems unwarranted.", "timestamp": "1471513792"}, {"author": "Bernadette", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805895771292&reply_comment_id=806131164562", "anchor": "fb-805895771292_806131164562", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Yes. After watching this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=144...
(linked above) I'm convinced that Gleb has actually been scammed, though in his comments above he seems resistant to this idea, possibly because it undermines the argument his material is reaching a broad audience.", "timestamp": "1471602707"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805895771292&reply_comment_id=807112468022", "anchor": "fb-805895771292_807112468022", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Having reviewed the evidence of our FB engagement and this video, I update toward us being scammed by FB :-(", "timestamp": "1472069562"}, {"author": "Denis", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805895771292&reply_comment_id=807212462632", "anchor": "fb-805895771292_807212462632", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Bernadette, wow, I didn\u2019t realize that either (that these farms hide their activity by liking stuff for free). We\u2019ve had success in generating some engagement with very narrowly targeted ads once (some combination of city, group memberships, and page likes), but otherwise my impression has also been that it\u2019s a waste.
On the topic of this thread and not in response to Bernadette, though, I think Gleb rocks, and this is not the sort of thing one ought to have known.", "timestamp": "1472110230"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802", "anchor": "fb-805899009802", "service": "fb", "text": "There's a concept called \"appearance of impropriety.\" The idea is that you do not always need to prove malfeasance, you just need to prove someone didn't do a sufficiently good job proving they didn't commit malfeasance. Similar to the way Vegas dealers flash their empty hands to the camera before putting them in their pockets. You might be able to sneak some chips without leaving definitive proof on camera, but they put the obligation on dealers to prove they didn't.
As outlined by many others above, Gleb and Intentional Insight's behavior is so *screamingly* beyond appearance of impropriety I do not care what he believes. Maybe it is all innocent now- but if he suddenly did start paying for likes and manipulating Amazon to improve his ratings, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. If Tsipursky can't make it *obvious* he is behaving ethically, he needs to stop working until he can. This goes 10x for an outreach-focused organization.
I encourage everyone to link to Jeff's post on their blogs and social media to raise its search ranking, so that people on the fence know that the community he claims to represent does not endorse him.", "timestamp": "1471480385"}, {"author": "Claire", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=805899423972", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_805899423972", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I'm unsure about the benefits of sharing Jeff's post to highlight the concern to outsiders vs. the benefits of not sharing it so outsiders see more EA content instead of community drama.", "timestamp": "1471480525"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=805902308192", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_805902308192", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Claire I'd think the time to do that would be after this discussion hits diminishing returns and someone puts up a more systematic summary of the issues (provided that someone does do that).
Many important additional points have come up or been linked in these threads which were not included in Jeff's original post.", "timestamp": "1471481699"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=805902472862", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_805902472862", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Valid point on Carl's part, something more systemic that didn't require reading the comments would be better", "timestamp": "1471481736"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=805903136532", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_805903136532", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Drafting something now...", "timestamp": "1471482307"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=805903176452", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_805903176452", "service": "fb", "text": "→ (I'm going to write a draft as a google doc, then post it here for collaboration)", "timestamp": "1471482358"}, {"author": "Gregory", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=805903470862", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_805903470862", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Thanks for sparing me from volunteering, Jeff (likewise your work on this post too). :)", "timestamp": "1471482606"}, {"author": "Jacob", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=805911195382", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_805911195382", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I think that the most important resource that EA as a movement has isn't the number of people or the amount of money, it's trust and credibility. Any taint of dishonesty that attaches to EA, any whiff that we are doing this for gain or self-promotion, would be a severe threat. It's critical that we show 0 tolerance for anything that could paint EA in that light, whether it comes from malice or naivete.
I encourage everyone to share Jeff's document when it is ready, and I am grateful for his energy in leading this important effort of \"gardening\".", "timestamp": "1471484636"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=805913595572", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_805913595572", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff one reason I held off criticizing II for so long was that i didn't want to discourage other people from trying new things, most of which look crazy at first. I think it would help to note all the chances Gleb had to prove he was acting in good faith, and that this isn't a reaction to him being weird or not following orthodoxy, it's that he claimed good metrics and it's now obvious that was misleading at best", "timestamp": "1471486102"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=805925421872", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_805925421872", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Here's a draft: https://docs.google.com/.../1KxPSpc5GFefUIH8Fh4hD6is.../edit
If people have fixes, suggestions, or new sections please contribute! This is a big discussion with a lot of angles and I'm sure I've missed important ones.", "timestamp": "1471492278"}, {"author": "Peter", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=805940641372", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_805940641372", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Could you please post this in the EA Facebook group once it's finished (seeing as one benefit of this is everyone being aware of the problems)?", "timestamp": "1471498212"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=805970316902", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_805970316902", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Once it's finished we'll figure out some sort of broad distribution. Maybe publishing as a post on the EA Forum? Linking it on the EA FB group makes sense.", "timestamp": "1471522609"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=805975830852", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_805975830852", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I've now gone through all the comments, except for reconciling the competing conclusions. Draft is ready for another round of review!", "timestamp": "1471526965"}, {"author": "Raymond", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=805997043342", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_805997043342", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Once the draft has reached a conclusion, I highly recommend letting it sit for a day. Right now it feels like a lot of people are using this as a way to channel pent up frustration (I would be among them if I had gotten in on it before other people had), but that is not a good place to be sending this kind of letter from.", "timestamp": "1471536234"}, {"author": "Raymond", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=806009862652", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_806009862652", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Also, somewhere in this post, someone suggested \"have a small moderated skype between Gleb, someone representing people in the EA community who feel InIn is harmful, and a moderator that everyone trusts.\" I wanted to signal-boost that comment but can't find it now.
I think that may have been a better next step than crowd-sourced-letter-to-Gleb. (conditional on Gleb being interested). The idea being that it's easier to actually reach consensus with a few people talking to each other like human beings than with people arguing on social media.
(In this scenario, I think it was important for enough people to discuss their concerns publicly that Gleb could see that this wasn't just a few isolated concerns, but I also think this thread spiraled into something lynch-mob-like in a way that I'm not comfortable with)", "timestamp": "1471542534"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=806011155062", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_806011155062", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Raymond, I would be highly interested. Perhaps have Jeff Kaufman talk to me, and Jacy moderate if he's willing? That would be great!", "timestamp": "1471543063"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=806185006662", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_806185006662", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I'm in the process of splitting the letter into two documents: (1) a straight-ahead listing of problems, with lots of screenshots, and (2) a short open letter asking Gleb to stop.", "timestamp": "1471629357"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=806185101472", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_806185101472", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Here's the new document, which is ready for review: https://docs.google.com/.../1Pe1kDVbOYgNuIWRIXnMXdei.../edit
Let me know what else needs adding.", "timestamp": "1471629387"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805899009802&reply_comment_id=806767045252", "anchor": "fb-805899009802_806767045252", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff Kaufman It isn't ready for review.", "timestamp": "1471898170"}, {"author": "Raymond", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805912298172", "anchor": "fb-805912298172", "service": "fb", "text": "Edit: as I was writing this I realized that a next action was sort of settled upon in the next comment-thread up (i.e. Jeff writing a summary of this thread)
I feel like this conversation has explored most of the points that are necessary to inform whatever the collective \"next action\" is. There's still room to debate/question some specific aspects, (i.e. is InIn actively misleading, or just a bit tone-deaf and awkward?) but resolving those doesn't seem like it would have a huge impact on whatever that next action is to me.
What are the next steps that make sense to take? How does a loosely organized community come to a decision about how to control its content and members?", "timestamp": "1471485181"}, {"author": "Jacob", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805912298172&reply_comment_id=805923221282", "anchor": "fb-805912298172_805923221282", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Each person looks at the evidence for themselves but also updates strongly towards the consensus per Aumann agreement? I don't think that you can get anything stronger behind decisions than \"broad consensus\", and that seems to be what's happening here. And if most people boost the same signal, it should appear as \"the community's decision\" to the outside.", "timestamp": "1471490587"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582", "anchor": "fb-805921574582", "service": "fb", "text": "Since Jeff Kaufman raised some more specific concerns, I responded to them in a subthread. I figured it might be helpful for others to see my response, so to make it more visible, I am reposting it in the bottom of this post.
I will type our your 3 concerns Jeff Kaufman with numbers, and my response with number and letter.
1) You expressed a concern that \u201cThe techniques [InIn] uses read as scammy and scummy, like someone trying to sell you something\u201d and thus \u201cpeople might be turned off by InIn posts\u201d from EA
1A) My response: The techniques are informed by the kind of articles our audience likes to read already. We match our content to the audience, and write in a style approapriate to each audience level. For instance, this piece might seem scammy, salesy, and scammy to you, but it fits right in to the rest of the pieces on Lifehack, one of the most prominent self-improvement websites in the world: http://www.lifehack.org/357644/the-secret-giving-wisely As you can see, it was shared 62 times, which indicates it was read widely. By contrast, see this article in Time magazine, which has a different audience, and thus a more intellectual bent: http://time.com/4257876/wounded-warrior-project-scandal/ It made the front page of Google news for a couple of days for the search term \u201cWounded Warrior\u201d during the height of the Wounder Warrior scandal, and was read by hundreds of thousands. We have data of many clicks on the effective charities mentioned in the piece, and received private emails thanking us for getting good traffic to them. I can come up with many similar examples of where we fit our content to our target audience.
2) You expressed a concern that \u201cpopularization is hard to do well\u201d
2A) My response is that we at InIn agree very much it\u2019s hard to do well. Research on effective communication and evidence of impact informs our approach, and we are committed to using methods that are most effective in appealing to our target demographic groups. I and other Intentional Insights core participants strongly believe in orienting toward effective, research-driven communication methods. So we are deliberately avoiding talking about EA in the large majority of our pieces to avoid possible taint to that brand, while serving the cause through promulgating these ideas broadly. And believe me, we are not the only EA meta-charity using content marketing methods, we're just one of several doing so, and in fact help a number of other orgs that are trying to target a broad audience become better at doing so.
3) You expressed a concern that there is \u201cno indication people are actually internalizing EA ideas from InIn posts\u201d
3A) My response: I judge whether people internalize ideas based on their actions. I wonder if you took the time to read our evidence of impact, available in our Hackpad page which I linked here multiple times. For example the reference letter quoted here from the media director of The Life You Can Save: https://docs.google.com/.../1FnTWEU.../edit... This evidence should show you that we had 7 articles there through May 16, 2016, when she wrote that, and more since. As she wrote, my pieces \u201cregularly reach an audience of over 5,000, at least 12% of whom make a donation.\u201d As another example, we published an article in The Huffington Post that encouraged effective decision-making in donations by comparing the impact of one\u2019s donations in the US to the much larger impact of one\u2019s donations in developing countries highlighting GiveDirectly: http://intentionalinsights.org/how-to-supercharge-your... We later found out from GiveDirectly staff that $500 was donated just through people clicking on the link in the article. The actual impact of the article on donations to effective causes is going to be much more, as the vast majority of people who will have found out about GiveDirectly from the article will take a while to donate as they research the topic and consider their donations.
I hope that helps provide clarity regarding your concerns.", "timestamp": "1471490181"}, {"author": "Jacy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=805926953802", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_805926953802", "service": "fb", "text": "→ ", "timestamp": "1471493512"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=805937787092", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_805937787092", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I appreciate posting this:
\"3A) My response: I judge whether people internalize ideas based on their actions. I wonder if you took the time to read our evidence of impact, available in our Hackpad page which I linked here multiple times. For example the reference letter quoted here from the media director of The Life You Can Save: https://docs.google.com/.../1FnTWEU.../edit...
This evidence should show you that we had 7 articles there through May 16, 2016, when she wrote that, and more since. As she wrote, my pieces \u201cregularly reach an audience of over 5,000, at least 12% of whom make a donation.\u201d As another example, we published an article in The Huffington Post that encouraged effective decision-making in donations by comparing the impact of one\u2019s donations in the US to the much larger impact of one\u2019s donations in developing countries highlighting GiveDirectly: http://intentionalinsights.org/how-to-supercharge-your... We later found out from GiveDirectly staff that $500 was donated just through people clicking on the link in the article. The actual impact of the article on donations to effective causes is going to be much more, as the vast majority of people who will have found out about GiveDirectly from the article will take a while to donate as they research the topic and consider their donations.\"", "timestamp": "1471497622"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=805958305972", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_805958305972", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jacy It is the case that people in this thread could've been more charitable and epistemically rigorous. However, I believe that Gleb's wide communication failures, and people's attempts to hold in their irritations and criticisms for a long time, are the main causal factor in the problems here, rather than insufficiently strong respect and epistemic norms.
(Would be interested to get your take on norms, perhaps via PM, another time :) )", "timestamp": "1471508743"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=805958630322", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_805958630322", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I have a really hard time seeing what this thread has to do with the social issues in the EA community. The level of patience demonstrated in dealing with someone who has repeatedly engaged in blatantly manipulative behavior strikes me as extremely generous. I'll happily stipulate that Gleb is entirely well-intentioned, because that is really beside the point. People have been telling him for a very long time that his behavior isn't acceptable, and he clearly hasn't learned anything from that. The risk of harm from Gleb being in an outward-facing role dramatically outweighs the risk of harm from him being too strongly criticized.", "timestamp": "1471509405"}, {"author": "Ozzie", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=805959718142", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_805959718142", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I did a bit of investigation, and am pretty doubtful that InIn got paid likes. My guess and somewhat of my understanding is that they did paid fb advertising, which is generally legit, and which is also known to draw likes from some super spammy accounts.
I also want to chime in and say that the public antagonism of InIn seems harsh to me, I know a lot of people would emotionally have a very difficult time if they were such publicly described in similar language by so many people.
While I could be wrong, and likely haven't seen as much as some people here, my impression is that the InIn community has positive intentions but is pursuing them in a way many others regard as essentially tacky.
I think I'd recommend resolving this by having Gleb have a private discussion with one or two members of the other side and maybe a moderator, then publish the results, rather than have this be a topic of public debate. I felt similar with regards to the other incident where a person at a precious eag event said something of another attendee, and the discussion kind of went out of control.", "timestamp": "1471512045"}, {"author": "Maxwell", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=805968934672", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_805968934672", "service": "fb", "text": "→ They do paid advertising in the places that are most likely to lead to fake likes from clickfarm accounts. Gleb says that's to target an underserved audience and those boosts have real impact. It's kind of just up to everyone to read and decide for themselves whether Gleb is being a) disingenuous, b) earnest but mistaken, or c) correct.
My idea of being generous concluding b, but regardless, this is one smaller reason of a much bigger set for why International Insights falls way, way short of what I would like to see from an organization that aligns itself with effective altruism.", "timestamp": "1471521800"}, {"author": "Maxwell", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=805970052432", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_805970052432", "service": "fb", "text": "→ It's a bit poppy, but this video is helpful for those confused as to what those likes are, where they came from, whether they are real, the difference between paying for likes and paying to boost, and what the impact is of having a lot of fake likes on your page.
(The title is sensationalized, but the content is extremely relevant)
https://youtu.be/oVfHeWTKjag", "timestamp": "1471522388"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=805972267992", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_805972267992", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Ben I don't think people generally attempted to hold in their irritations and criticisms for a long time. Gleb received criticism on LW for a long time.
Gleb also learned something from the criticism. Gleb is now circulating drafts of his writing before it get's published. If his drafts are seen as potentially harmful by other people there's a good chance that they are fixed by other people before getting published.
The starting post criticises Gleb for facebook likes that are likely a result of standard facebook advertising as described by Maxwell (see video) and him hiring a few people in the third world. That isn't productive feedback.
Gleb stopped linking in posts to LW after people in LW wanted LW less associated with InIn. Gleb describes that he has a collaboration with various organisation he links to to gather impact data. If those organisations wouldn't want to be associated with Gleb they likely would tell him and Gleb wouldn't link to them.", "timestamp": "1471524247"}, {"author": "Vipul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=805994154132", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_805994154132", "service": "fb", "text": "→ 1A is probably true, but many people in the EA community would be pretty skeptical of it and would have strong priors against it, for the simple reason that Gleb appears to have been most careless about applying the principle with the EA community itself, by cross-posting material intended for mass-market audiences to the EA Forum and LessWrong. For instance:
http://lesswrong.com/.../the_valentines_day_gift_that.../
Even people who aspire to be rationalists will rely heavily on first impressions, and if you're not doing a good job communicating with them, they'll have a hard time believing you are doing a good job communicating with other audiences for whom they cannot directly evaluate things.", "timestamp": "1471535135"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=806008640102", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_806008640102", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Vipul, yeah, we updated based on feedback on these posts and stopped doing so :-)", "timestamp": "1471541877"}, {"author": "Jon", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=806774804702", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_806774804702", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Due to the concerns that have been recently expressed, TLYCS has investigated the our engagement numbers mentioned in this thread. We have found that a staff member told Gleb that his articles generated a 12% donation rate. This is incorrect \u2013 when looking strictly at donations from those who came to our website through Gleb's articles, the conversion rate is below 1%. Further, we discovered that this staff member \"boosted\" the Facebook post discussed in this thread to a global audience, leading Gleb and others to observe artificially high engagement. When this happened we asked the staff member, who is no longer with TLYCS, to stop boosting posts. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.\ufffd", "timestamp": "1471902177"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=806775303702", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_806775303702", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Jon: Thanks for the update!
Are you able to share any absolute numbers on donation rates? Even though a rate of, say, 25 donating people per post on posts that get 5000 views is just 0.5%, that could actually be very promising.", "timestamp": "1471902415"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=806775333642", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_806775333642", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Additionally, when you say \"conversion\" do you mean donations only, or do you include things like mailing list signups?", "timestamp": "1471902475"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=806775887532", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_806775887532", "service": "fb", "text": "→ JonBehar can you estimate the value that cooperation with Gleb provides to TLYCS? Would you be sad if it stopped?", "timestamp": "1471902687"}, {"author": "Jon", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=806777015272", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_806777015272", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff Kaufman We've had ~3,000 visitors to our site who a) landed on one of Gleb's blog post or b) were referred to our site from one of Gleb's pieces on another site. The thousands per post stat refers to social media impressions, actual web traffic is the more meaningful metric. Of those visitors, 8 people clicked a donate button, which likely corresponded to 2-3 actual donations. There were also 8 people who subscribed to our mailing list.", "timestamp": "1471903208"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=806777434432", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_806777434432", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jon any insight into why that post was promoted? Did the staff member promote any other posts?", "timestamp": "1471903346"}, {"author": "Jon", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=806778597102", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_806778597102", "service": "fb", "text": "→ TLYCS had circulated some incorrect numbers and we wanted to correct them. Beyond that we don't feel like a continued discussion is a productive use of team time.", "timestamp": "1471903659"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=806778851592", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_806778851592", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Carl", "timestamp": "1471903976"}, {"author": "Jon", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805921574582&reply_comment_id=806780558172", "anchor": "fb-805921574582_806780558172", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Christian, I'll respond speaking for myself and not my employer. I don't want to draw this discussion out so this will be my only comment on the matter. Gleb has introduced me to a number of people/organizations, I expect these relationships to be quite valuable in terms of promoting giving to highly effective charities, and I wish more people would make introductions of similar quality.", "timestamp": "1471904431"}, {"author": "Evan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805960022532", "anchor": "fb-805960022532", "service": "fb", "text": "Intentional Insights has collaborated with or at least been in conversation with organizations like TLYCS about joint projects. I'm aware this happened at least a few months ago in both cases. Most EA organizations seem like they would be savvy enough not to involve themselves with organizations obviously bad at marketing. What they thought of InIn at the time of first contact, what they think now, or in light of Jeff's blog post, their impression of Gleb's claim InIn's marketing is more appropriate for the target audience they claim, and if they believe targeting such audiences to spread EA is valid, could all be easily confirmed by contacting TLYCS privately. The official if private testimony of other public-facing organizations managing large membership communities seems like it would be just as valuable as other testimony here.", "timestamp": "1471512619"}, {"author": "Arjun", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805960022532&reply_comment_id=805964708142", "anchor": "fb-805960022532_805964708142", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Of note: A senior TLYCS employee is an Advisory Board member of InIn.", "timestamp": "1471518260"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805960022532&reply_comment_id=805965157242", "anchor": "fb-805960022532_805965157242", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Evan and Arjun there is some feedback from two different EA organizational staff quoted here: https://docs.google.com/.../1FnTWEU.../edit...", "timestamp": "1471518774"}, {"author": "Julia", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805960022532&reply_comment_id=805993485472", "anchor": "fb-805960022532_805993485472", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I am not aware of any joint projects between CFAR and InIn.
Without speaking for the rest of CFAR, I have substantial concerns about InIn's tone and approach.", "timestamp": "1471534589"}, {"author": "Evan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805960022532&reply_comment_id=805994044352", "anchor": "fb-805960022532_805994044352", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Julia, Gleb told me a while ago he talked to ClearerThinking and Anna Salamon about InIn's work. I don't know if anything came of it. Doesn't sound like it.", "timestamp": "1471535033"}, {"author": "Julia", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805960022532&reply_comment_id=805994248942", "anchor": "fb-805960022532_805994248942", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Credibility-by-association is a tricky business. I've seen it used to unjustly smear people, e.g., \"Well, such-and-such organization has collaborated with Bob, and Bob is a known associate of neo-reactionaries.\"
But the same process can also be used to unjustly legitimize people. e.g., I'm concerned about Evan's phrasing \"collaborated with or at least been in conversation with organizations... about joint projects.\"
Phrasing like this means that if Bob approaches Alice with a pitch, and Alice politely listens but doesn't take him up on it, then Bob gets \"legitimacy points\" just from Alice having agreed to talk to him.
I think this is a dangerous policy to use to decide how much to trust people.", "timestamp": "1471535172"}, {"author": "Evan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805960022532&reply_comment_id=805994598242", "anchor": "fb-805960022532_805994598242", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Julia, I was trying to be helpful, but perhaps it backfired, so I've edited my parent comment not to mention CFAR.", "timestamp": "1471535337"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805960022532&reply_comment_id=805999164092", "anchor": "fb-805960022532_805999164092", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Evan, we don't have existing standing collaborations with CFAR, Julia is correct. Of meta-charities, we have collaborations with TLYCS, about which you can ask Jon and Laura Gamse; ACE, about which you can ask Leah Edgerton; .impact/LEAN - they're in a transition right now, so best to ask Tom Ash who just stepped down, about our previous collaborations; SHIC, about which you can ask Tee. We also have collaborations with effective charities such as AMF and GiveDirectly.", "timestamp": "1471536970"}, {"author": "Tee", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805960022532&reply_comment_id=806007372642", "anchor": "fb-805960022532_806007372642", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Correct, we've been in touch with Gleb about potentially linking to InIn articles and he was kind enough to have me on his web video series.
Beyond providing these basic facts, I'm not interested in further commenting on a thread where someone is getting publicly skewered - justifiably or not. Just seems like a massive time sink to me", "timestamp": "1471541168"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805960022532&reply_comment_id=806007532322", "anchor": "fb-805960022532_806007532322", "service": "fb", "text": "→ This post of Kerry's looks related: http://effective-altruism.com/.../effective_giving_vs.../5st
\"This post reads to me as extremely self-promoting, which continues a general theme I\u2019ve noticed in your posts. You mention the name of your organization approximately every other paragraph and you seem to be trying hard to make it seem as though I endorse the work of Intentional Insights.\"", "timestamp": "1471541247"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805960022532&reply_comment_id=806010316742", "anchor": "fb-805960022532_806010316742", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Yup, this was helpful for us updating on how to improve our writing for the EA forum :-)", "timestamp": "1471542719"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322", "anchor": "fb-805973101322", "service": "fb", "text": "Following the logic of Jacob I decided to share my thoughts about this.
First the disclosure: I've decided not to fund InIn, I offered my help and exchanged some emails with the InIn team (as I am happy to help any organization or person in the EA movement). Also we've agreed with Gleb that if I'd like I can republish his posts on my website.
----
My impression is that this drama is absolutely blown out of proportion. Many comments here seem to have more emotional rather than rational nature and are sort of personal attacks on Gleb while objections to InIn activity are \"rationalizations\" of these attacks rather than concrete feedback on InIn operations. Maybe I am wrong, but to me it seems like there is some frustration with Gleb as a person and the issues of VAs or likes are the pretext to off-load the anger (I don't imply that these concerns aren't valid - I write about them later on, it's just that they are not the real core of the issue).
The \"demand\" to shut down InIn because some people (who are btw neither beneficiaries nor target group) feel that it's \"scammy and salesy\" seems absurd. Especially since there aren't any explicit evidence that InIn is harmful to EA movement (as far as I know) other than some people's impressions/assumptions/predictions. There are always people who will not like the content, whatever the content would be, for example some people may criticize the opposite approach to InIn's - that such content is too nuanced and complex so it is not appealing to large audience. In my opinion, after Gleb published the document from TLYCS, there are more evidence that InIn has positive impact than that it's harmful (since evidence for InIn harmful effects is only opinion's from couple of people who don't like what they do, and again, there will always be some percentage of people who won't like it).
Jeff it would probably be useful to define what exactly seems \"like someone trying to sell you something\" so either Gleb can correct his actions if he thinks your concerns are valid but also other organizations or people could learn what to possibly avoid. (By the way for me personally trying-to-sell-you-something approach is not necessarily evil by definition).
Also, to avoid \"moving the target\" it would be good to see what your criteria for changing your mind are (what evidence you would like to see to think that InIn's impact is net positive). I can also give you mine (although I don't think I am important here), and it would be good to hear from Gleb what his criteria for changing mind are.
Probably also defining what exactly is \"spammy\" in InIn activity would be a good thing and I agree here with Julia's line of thought. This I am not sure of, to be honest, but my impression is that the assumption that InIn is spammy comes from people saying that it's spammy and not necessarily their actions. Potential activities that are spammy:
(1) buying likes - most likely not the case
(2) promoting to low-income countries (I don't agree with this marketing strategy, but the sole fact of promoting in these countries does not equal spam) - not the case
(3) upvotes from paid VAs (here I can't say, because I am not a member of Less Wrong community or EA Forum, so I can't assess it myself) - Gleb updated that it's fixed
(4) shares/comments from paid VAs (if it was a case it was caused by failing in managing VAs and not \"spammy intentions\") - again Gleb updated that it's fixed
anything I missed?
Anyway, this discussion seems like a witch-hunting or a massive gish gallop. From my perspective, it looks like people are looking for whatever reason to criticize Gleb/InIn (in a harsh way, not to give feedback). It started with unclear accusations went all the way through \"I don't like the logo\", \"You're slogan seems cultish\" (I mean, seriously??), and \"the t-shirts are bad\" to calling him a scammer. David - I think calling someone 'scammer' where there was no evidence/suspicion that InIn could be a scam is just awful. The only thing was that Jeff wrote that InIn feels scammy to him (and if I understood it correctly it was more about how InIn presents itself, not that it actually is a scam).
There were obviously good points made. I am skeptical of this structure of volunteer/contractor or the strategy of promoting to low-income countries.
I was also surprised to see that some people here say that the way Gleb is handling the situation makes them perceive him even more negatively (eg Jacobi). From my perspective, Gleb was patient, transparent, open to feedback, and generally responded to everyone with respect (which didn't always work the other way).", "timestamp": "1471524903"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=805973605312", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_805973605312", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I actually agree that a lot of the content in this thread has been system 2 rationalizations of system 1 feelings. You seem to be using this as a way of dismissing the criticisms, though, which I strongly disagree with. Two reasons: 1) System 1 reasoning is often very useful at judging complex things like character. It shouldn't be relied on exclusively, but if dozens of people all have the same system 1 reaction, it really should not be dismissed out of hand. 2) If we all have this system 1 reaction, it's very likely that at least some non-EAs will too. Having a public voice of EA cause these system 1 reactions in people first hearing about the movement seems extremely harmful to me. Marketing it as effective giving instead helps a bit, but in my view not nearly enough.", "timestamp": "1471525335"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=805974987542", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_805974987542", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"(3) upvotes from paid VAs (here I can't say, because I am not a member of Less Wrong community or EA Forum, so I can't assess it myself) - Gleb updated that it's fixed
(4) shares/comments from paid VAs (if it was a case it was caused by failing in managing VAs and not \"spammy intentions\") - again Gleb updated that it's fixed\"
Gleb has claimed to have \"updated\" on after each of a series of conversations, and but his contractors continue following him around voting him up and giving low quality praise. See Alexander's comment above: http://www.jefftk.com/.../conversation-with-gleb-of...", "timestamp": "1471526403"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=805975765982", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_805975765982", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nathan \"You seem to be using this as a way of dismissing the criticisms\" - nope, as I've said - \"(I don't imply that these concerns aren't valid - I write about them later on, it's just that they are not the real core of the issue)\".
My argument is that whatever kind of content you put out, there will be some people having this negative reaction from system 1. And I am not sure if this system 1 reaction is caused by content or by Gleb's person.
Also when assesing effectiveness of an organization I think it should be made using evidence and reason (the topic of discussion is not judging Gleb's character, but the InIn actions and effectiveness).", "timestamp": "1471526884"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=805976853802", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_805976853802", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Sorry, I was unclear. My impression from your post is that you were devaluing people's system 1 responses and presenting them as an unreasonable basis on which to critique Gleb/InIn. That's the impression I wanted to disagree with.
While you're strictly correct that there will always be some people who react negatively to your content, I think that's irrelevant to what's happening here. This isn't just a few people having a negative reaction, it's large swathes of the community being deeply put off.
I think the large number of system 1 reactions in the community to Gleb's behavior *is* evidence. At the bare minimum, it's evidence that lots of people have such a system 1 reaction. That fact by itself is sufficient to convince me that he should not be in an outward-facing role, nor leading an organization with an outward focus.
ETA: Most people judge whether a person or their behavior is ethical using their system 1. EA is a hard enough sell already; someone who is going back and forth about whether utilitarianism is ethical could easily be pushed over the edge in the wrong direction by observing EAs acting in ways that seem clearly unethical. The reputation and trustworthiness of the community will have a large effect on how much impact we are able to have; InIn's direct impact would have to be massive to counterbalance this harm.", "timestamp": "1471527486"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=805991359732", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_805991359732", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The problem isn't \"t shirts are ugly\", it's \"was told t shirts were ugly,cited people who liked them, supporters turn out to be paid employees. /again/ \". This is either scummy or Gleb doesn't understand social dynamics well enough to succeed at the project he's chosen.", "timestamp": "1471533655"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=806006394602", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_806006394602", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Having system 1 responses is okay. Not using system 2 when criticizing someone of the community in public is on the other hand more questionable.
At the moment we have an US election where two people who both trigger a large number of negative system 1 responses in a lot of people run for office. Our memetic system rewards polarizing messages. In Antifragile Nassim Taleb describes how one of the reasons why Ayn Rand had as much success as she did was because she provoked very strong negative responses.
In response to the concern Gleb choose to reduce speaking about EA but instead choose phrases like effective giving. This is useful because Gleb's target audience has other system 1 responses then the typical EA audience.", "timestamp": "1471540481"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=806008605172", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_806008605172", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I don't think it's remotely fair to claim that anyone in this thread has been \"not using system 2\".", "timestamp": "1471541834"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=806015970412", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_806015970412", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nathan, I'm curious what you think of this comment \"the fundamental problem is that Gleb lacks a sense of class, style or social norms\" or this comment \"I'm not convinced it's a good idea to provide tactical advice to scammers on how to appear less scammy\" are examples of System 2 responses.", "timestamp": "1471544909"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=806016788772", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_806016788772", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I think that if you think the issue through on a system 2 level criticizing Gleb for having a handful of third world virtual assistents that like posts on facebook isn't a valuable criticism.
It's criticism that comes from system 1. It's emotional aversion to associate with low status people from the third world. It's okay to buy betnets for them but when it comes to actually integrating them and giving them work to participate that triggers system 1 aversion.", "timestamp": "1471545351"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=806016828692", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_806016828692", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Those look strongly critical to me, but they still look more like logical deliberative claims than snap judgments.", "timestamp": "1471545381"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=806018161022", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_806018161022", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Christian, that's both presumptuous and inaccurate. I have no objection to using VAs from low-income countries. Your summary of the argument against InIn as \"[criticism for] having a handful of third world virtual assistants that like posts on facebook\" is far from a reasonable summary of the critical posts on this thread.", "timestamp": "1471545781"}, {"author": "Gregory", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=806018171002", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_806018171002", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Christian I think it is great to work in partnership with people from low income countries. I just think it is less great when a) you pay via a risible: \"oh, we pay them one hour, and they volunteer for two more!\" scheme, and b) their activity seems to be too often promoting Gleb's work without disclosing obvious conflicts of interest.", "timestamp": "1471545800"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=806018660022", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_806018660022", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I'd be just as unhappy about someone having a paid posse of Americans who followed them around the internet pretending to be fascinated bystanders impressed by their writing.", "timestamp": "1471546136"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=806018909522", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_806018909522", "service": "fb", "text": "→ As far as (a) goes, it's worth to discuss that issue in detail. Detailed feedback about how his arragement should look like are likely more productive than the way this thread started.
As far as (b) goes, I think Gleb learned his lesson (I participated in many conversation on LW with him) and they aren't voting anymore on LW and the EA forum. I don't have any problems with them liking the pages on facebook. I think Gleb successful integrated feedback on the issue.", "timestamp": "1471546340"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=806043270702", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_806043270702", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff so I guess we can only wait and see whether it will be done this time. I get why it is frustrating for you and it is an awkward situation.
Do you intend to address my questions from the first message?
Nathan I do think that it is unreasonable to claim that InIn is harmful because some people feel not nice about their content (or as I suspect, Gleb as a person) and ignore any other evidence of positive impact. That's exactly my point. So I think I have to agree to disagree with you here.
I am not sure how to assess whether it's a large portion of community or not. And again I have the impression that it's actually more caused by Gleb as a person than his content, so I would say it's wrong to draw conclusions about general audience's reaction to InIn content from this sample.
Although yes, again, I do agree that there will be some people who will not like Gleb's content. However, the scenario in which, let's say, someone learns about AMF from another source after not liking InIn articles, and while considering whether to donate decides not to, thinking \"this organization that endorsed AMF in one of their articles felt sales-y so I won't donate\" seems super weird to me.
Elizabeth Ok, then it does seem awkward.
Nathan \"I don't think it's remotely fair to claim that anyone in this thread has been not using system 2\" - strawman argument.
Gleb this first comment also struck me. \"He lacks sense of class, style, or social norms because look at the logo\" ...
Jeff probably it differs from comment to comment. There are some like the one calling Gleb a scammer that are clearly awful (by the way, don't you think that it's actually more discouraging from engaging with the community than \"content feeling sales-y\"?); there are some that are purely rational (eg. Julia's), and some in the middle.
Gregory I agree that this structure of volunteer/contributor is not good and I would suggest changing it.", "timestamp": "1471554873"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=806043540162", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_806043540162", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Daniel: To your second point, that wasn't a strawman, it was a direct quote from Christian. To your first point, I don't think anyone's ignoring evidence of positive impact, though perhaps we're not highlighting it quite as much as would be polite. I've explicitly made the comparison elsewhere by saying that InIn's direct impact would have to be massive to counterbalance the risk of harm \u2013 I think based on the evidence we have, it's not nearly large enough.", "timestamp": "1471555043"}, {"author": "David", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=806043824592", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_806043824592", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Since my comment \"I'm not convinced it's a good idea to provide tactical advice to scammers on how to appear less scammy\" has come under some fire, please allow me to elaborate:
Gleb is getting caught by the community's spam filters. I acknowledge that spam filters have false positive rates.
The direct public feedback that I've seen people offer Gleb has come in two forms:
1) please stop doing this, you are hurting us, rethink your approach from the ground up and practice in lower-stakes environments
2) here is a specific way you can avoid giving the appearance of impropriety
Gleb has, as far as I can tell, ignored advice type #1 entirely, and responded to advice type #2 by nitpicking the advice or making the smallest possible update that satisfies the letter of the advice, while ignoring the spirit.
Examples of the latter:
1) \"you need to pay your employees at least X/hour\" \"okay, I pay them X/hour but they also volunteer for twice as many hours as they work\" (also \"it would be inaccurate to call them employees\" etc)
2) \"you need to stop paying for likes\" \"okay, liking my content isn't actually a job requirement, but I've had conversations with my employees (whoops, I mean, people who I pay to do things for me) about how very important it is that my content gets a lot of likes, and it's hardly my fault of any of them read between the lines\"
There's a good reason successful spam filters don't give total visibility into their inner workings: if you know in detail how they work, it's very easy to make the smallest possible update that passes them.
Gleb's updates have been of this form, and some of the community are now accepting these updates as a show of good faith, or are now outright allowing him past their filters.
The spirit of my original comment is that I think the community should seriously consider the possibility that, in an effort to teach wolves how to be sheep, you are in fact teaching wolves how to disguise themselves as sheep.", "timestamp": "1471555171"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=806047397432", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_806047397432", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Daniel: I'm sorry I didn't respond to your questions; this is a busy thread!
I'm not interested in trying to give Gleb careful and targeted feedback. People have tried this, and he has sometimes agreed to change and not actually followed though, and other times made just the minimum change to handle their stated objection without addressing the real problem. At this point I just want him to stop all together.", "timestamp": "1471556712"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=806049478262", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_806049478262", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff no worries, what about your criteria for changing your mind about inin's impact? In my opinion that could move the discussion towards some kind of consensus/conclusion/solution ?", "timestamp": "1471557817"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=806050116982", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_806050116982", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nathan you did quote part of his post and made a caricature out of it, that's exactly what strawman is. More specifically, we've agreed that many people here use system 1 to judge inin's impact and system 2 to rationalize their judgement. Chrisitan pointed out that using system 2 instead of 1 to review organization's actions is better (refering to what we've agreed - MANY PEOPLE using system 1 to do so).", "timestamp": "1471558204"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805973101322&reply_comment_id=806052117972", "anchor": "fb-805973101322_806052117972", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Maybe I misunderstood what Christian was saying? I really don't see how I made a caricature out of it. My take is that everyone in this thread has been using their whole brain in the discussion, and that both their system 1s and system 2s have contributed value.", "timestamp": "1471559218"}, {"author": "Vipul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082", "anchor": "fb-805993181082", "service": "fb", "text": "This seems to be a pretty long thread! I haven't read all the responses in the thread, though I did skim through a lot of it and got a general sense of people's complaints. I'll post all my observations here, in no particular order.
(1) Jeff's post title (on Facebook) \"Why I'm not interested in funding Intentional Insights.\" seems odd. The default position for any organization out there is not to fund it; it's not really saying much that you choose not to fund an organization (unless you're a really large funder with a diverse portfolio and the organization under consideration fits the criteria for that portfolio). The title could perhaps better be explained in the context of Jeff noting that he has previously funded many organizations in the same space as InIn, and therefore his non-funding of InIn is actually something noteworthy.
(2) Jeff, and some others on the thread, go beyond the claim of personally not being interested in funding InIn to claiming that it's actively harmful to the world, and that it would be better if it simply ceased to exist. Jeff's fundamental intuition for why this is the case seems to be the use of sales-y and spammy tactics. I think this complaint is mostly off, and is to some extent influenced by typical mind fallacy. The LessWrong open thread http://lesswrong.com/.../open_thread_march_21_march.../d6y7 (that was linked earlier in the comments) provides a good discussion of this. Personally, to me, Gleb's articles are \"meh\". But I don't see a plausible causal chain from somebody being unimpressed with Gleb's articles to forming a negative opinion of the EA movement, or of ideas underlying effective altruism more broadly. At worst, they will just form a negative opinion of Gleb. At best, they'll get some kind of exposure to the idea, and get the sense that people at wide ranges of sophistication subscribe to these ideas.
Looking back on my personal experience, my earliest introductions to many complex ideas were based on simple, dumbed-down explanations. This is true of ideas around religion, philosophy, politics, psychology, etc. It is also true of ideas around business metrics. For instance, recently I was looking for benchmarks on email marketing, and I came across https://mailchimp.com/.../res.../email-marketing-benchmarks/ that I found quite helpful, even though people who work in email marketing would probably go \"meh\" for most of it. In the same way, I've found WikiHow articles that say \"obvious\" things quite useful, particularly for topics that are relevant to me but where I haven't had a chance to do a lot of research.
Basically, inferential distances can be huge, because of (a) differences in the amount of prior exposure and thought people have to ideas, and (b) differences in people's level of intelligence, critical thinking, etc. But even ignoring (b), (a) alone has a huge effect.
Now, I don't think Gleb actually does a good job (relative to others) in popularizing simple ideas underlying effective altruism. However, I don't think he does a terrible job, or that it's counterproductive overall. I also think people are overestimating the downsides of Gleb's articles engendering a \"meh\" response. I think any downsides are limited to Gleb and won't spread to the EA movement.
For instance, this post http://intentionalinsights.org/the-panama-papers-reveal... was, in my view, a fairly terrible post that I panned in feedback on a draft, but I don't see any reason to believe it could hurt the EA movement.
(3) Something more concerning is Gleb posting to fora like the EA Forum and LW with the same lax intellectual standards and sales-y approach that he takes to mass-market pieces. I think he shouldn't do that, and I think the downvotes and negative comments on the posts where he does that should serve as mechanisms to discourage him from doing that. For instance, posting a copy to LessWrong for http://lesswrong.com/.../the_valentines_day_gift_that.../ was, I think, not appropriate to LessWrong (and he was slammed for it in the comments). And http://effective-altruism.com/.../the_science_of.../ was a good idea in principle but the execution just wasn't good enough for the EA Forum (something I raised with him in comments, to which he responded graciously). In this regard, I think Claire's concern about possible vote manipulation on these fora is more concerning. There isn't a lot of transparency around votes on EAF and LessWrong, but judging from the fact that even some of Gleb's more offensive posts do get positive comments from regulars who aren't affiliated with him, I think it's likely that many of the upvotes are not by people financially connected to InIn.
(4) In general, it seems like Gleb reacts to criticism in a way that is constructive at a literal level: he often changes behavior directly in response to the criticism. At the same time, his response often doesn't get to the core of the expressed concerns, and I think this reflects a failure either on the part of those expressing concerns in communicating the underlying issues, or a failure or unwillingness on Gleb's part to incorporate that advice. My simplest explanation is that Gleb and a lot of his critics have different ways of thinking about issues, and therefore Gleb is either not understanding or understanding-but-not-agreeing-to the underlying criteria that his critics are using to generate each individual criticism.
(5) I think the paid likes controversy is a bit overblown at this point (I mostly agree with Jacy on that front). I also don't think people would even have noticed that some likes seem fake, had they actually found Gleb's posts good enough for them to think it was totally reasonable to like them. In general, given the content of his posts, I find the number of likes received by some of his more popular posts unsurprising, and I don't see the role of paid likes in the like counts of those posts to be significant.", "timestamp": "1471534302"}, {"author": "Miranda", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=805994074292", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_805994074292", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I mostly agree with you except for this bit: \"But I don't see a plausible causal chain from somebody being unimpressed with Gleb's articles to forming a negative opinion of the EA movement, or of ideas underlying effective altruism more broadly.\" I think that's a misunderstanding of how most people (e.g. everyone except people with unusually good epistemics) form opinions/have emotional reactions, which I've had the impression is mostly about \"cool!\" or \"ugh\" reactions to a specific thing propagating back to everything associated with that thing. (I notice myself thinking in this way too, especially when I'm tired or otherwise cognitively loaded.)", "timestamp": "1471535065"}, {"author": "Vipul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=805994258922", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_805994258922", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Sure. But Gleb's posts sound so unlike most EA-themed material that I don't think most people will make the connection (unless they specifically note that he has posted on LW or EAF).", "timestamp": "1471535203"}, {"author": "Miranda", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=805994588262", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_805994588262", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I would be concerned about newbies to EA reading EAF, or being on one of the various FB groups that Gleb posts to. Agreed that it's probably not going to have any effect on people who aren't yet interested in EA at all.", "timestamp": "1471535333"}, {"author": "Vipul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=805998355712", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_805998355712", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I should note that I've also been critical of other people who mass-spam fora with promotional material, even though they are much more widely respected among EAs than Gleb is; for instance, I (as well as Michael) have been critical of Robert's Facebook mass-posting strategy", "timestamp": "1471536502"}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=805998789842", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_805998789842", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Vipul 80,000 Hours and EA Outreach in general are guilty of this. I was just thinking that 80K does a lot of the things that people are lambasting Intentional Insights for doing, but people don't seem to react in the same way. Maybe that's just because there hasn't been a catalyst like the one here.
EDIT: This comment sort of neglects the fact that InIn has done a lot of other things people didn't like, which is responsible for a lot of the negativity. If InIn were just spammy, people probably wouldn't care as much.", "timestamp": "1471536741"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806000246922", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806000246922", "service": "fb", "text": "→ 80K isn't close to this egregious. To be clear about what InIn has been doing: they (probably illegally) take advantage of people in low-income countries by paying them significantly less than the minimum odesk rate in exchange for having them spam share posts and write fake five-star book reviews. 80K hasn't done anything in remotely the same league as that.", "timestamp": "1471537450"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806001614182", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806001614182", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I'm mildly annoyed at the level of promotion 80k and EAO have used, but they have enough of a stock of credibility with me that I'm willing to trust they're being reasonable. InIn/Gleb have completely burned through theirs.
(And what 80k/EAO have done is much less objectionable.)", "timestamp": "1471538180"}, {"author": "Erica", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806002527352", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806002527352", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Actually I think 80k and EA Outreach does a pretty big amount of harm. The insane amounts of elitism is pretty off-putting. Personally, I unfriended the vast majority of my EA and rationalist contacts, and left almost all the EA facebook pages quite a while back. (My social media experience has gotten MUCH more pleasant since then)
And then Jeff posts a link back to EA forums the other day and I follow it, and within about 10 seconds of poking about remember why I don't like those people...GiveWell's hires come specifically from top-25 schools. Of course, this doesn't stop Rob from telling People In General (not specifying \"people from elite schools\") that they should work for GiveWell. And that comment was taken from low-quality meeting notes which would have been fixed if they were willing to hire $10/hour office staff instead of $50k Ivy Leaguers. And meanwhile, 80k is all pushing about high-achieving recent college grads from top universities. And also, let's start up yet another set of college groups focusing on more elite future leaders at top schools. etc etc
It only took about 5 minutes of poking around to remember why I disliked you all so much (don't worry I still donate). I'll take Gleb's outreach to the general public over that any day.", "timestamp": "1471538709"}, {"author": "Rob", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806004089222", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806004089222", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"this doesn't stop Rob from telling People In General\"
I wrote: \"I often recommend people apply to work at GiveWell. Here's the experience of someone who actually worked there:\"
This is referring to *specific* people who I coach who I recommend apply, not all people in general.
In any case, your criticisms of us are different from concerns about InIn's content marketing in this thread, so better to discuss them elsewhere rather than here.", "timestamp": "1471539476"}, {"author": "Miranda", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806004184032", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806004184032", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Erica I notice I'm confused about why this doesn't seem to bother me as much most of the time? I suspect that in this case, my S1 thinks there's a good chance Givewell would hire me for a position relevant to my skills if I applied, despite my lack of elite degree; social proof seems stronger than educational background and it feels like most people don't actually care where I went to school.", "timestamp": "1471539496"}, {"author": "Erica", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806004448502", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806004448502", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I don't care whether they WOULD or not. In fact, I DID get hired by MIRI. I just think they're a bunch of elitist assholes and I'm tired of their shit and I want nothing to do with them. I'm leaving this thread, because I want nothing to do with this.", "timestamp": "1471539647"}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806004458482", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806004458482", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nathan, when I said 80K does similar things, I meant spamming promotional material, which is what Vipul was talking about. I agree that InIn has done other worse things that 80K hasn't done and that 80K does more good things in general.", "timestamp": "1471539667"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806004927542", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806004927542", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"that comment was taken from low-quality meeting notes\"
GiveWell posts the audio of their board meetings, and the meeting notes you were reading were a rough transcription Issa (not affiliated with GW) made.
If GW was describing that their hiring process as \"we only take people from top-25 schools\" that would worry me, while I'm reading them as saying \"the people we've hired tend to be from top-25 schools\" which is less so. Additionally, this was a description of the kind of people they had been hiring, which they say is not what they're planning to be doing with future hiring.", "timestamp": "1471539890"}, {"author": "Erica", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806005266862", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806005266862", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Please do not tag me. I do not actually want to participate in these discussions. Feel free to delete my comments if you like.", "timestamp": "1471539964"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806005511372", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806005511372", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I'm sorry, I started my comment before you posted your \"I'm leaving this thread\" comment. I've untagged you now.", "timestamp": "1471540016"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806009109162", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806009109162", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Vipul, I think you're probably greatly underestimating the difficulty of spreading a message faithfully. I'm aware that simplifications will and must happen, but that isn't a \"Well it's going to happen, so don't worry about it\" mindset, it's a \"This is one of the big ways that movements fail, through growing suddenly in a way that means most members have a distorted view of the message, and we need to take this very very carefully.\"
Until there is sufficient infrastructure in EA to on-board significantly more new people in a way that ensures no loss of core brand and makes sure the movement isn't host to 10,000 people who think EA is about giving to charity, then we need to stay well-away from the mass-market approach. And what's more, when we do, it'll be important to coordinate a unified front on the mass-market side, on how exactly we are simplifying our ideas.
None of this is in place, so I think the current InIn strategy is a very bad one.", "timestamp": "1471542192"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806010177022", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806010177022", "service": "fb", "text": "→ You're welcome to check out this video of an InIn Board meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21UvSCFIiA0", "timestamp": "1471542667"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806016115122", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806016115122", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Vipul, thanks for giving helpful feedback on how to engage better on the EA Forum and LessWrong - I think we as an organization have done quite a bit better because of your and other folks' helpful feedback, and I appreciate it!", "timestamp": "1471544962"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806018215912", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806018215912", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I think Gleb's response to criticism for posting at EA and LW is more than just literal but also on a strategic level. Gleb is at the moment writing an post about publically speaking about AI risk. He shows the post to various people willing to look at the draft before posting it to those venues.
Asking people beforehand to look at the draft is exactly the right solution to the problem of inappropriate posts landing in both fora.", "timestamp": "1471545808"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806018734872", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806018734872", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Asking for feedback is a good general approach, but so is realizing that sometimes you're not the right person for outreach.", "timestamp": "1471546220"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806019398542", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806019398542", "service": "fb", "text": "→ It doesn't seem that the charities for which he drove traffic told him to stop doing so. If they don't want him to do outreach for them I think they should tell him. If Gleb gets positive feedback from them and negative feedback from people who don't have numbers about his impact, I don't think it's obvious that Gleb should listen to those who don't have the numbers and completely stop what he's doing.
Apart from the direct traffic it's also worth keeping the SEO value of links from venues like Time in mind.", "timestamp": "1471546696"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806029373552", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806029373552", "service": "fb", "text": "→ 1. People *have* brought up that 80k's work is offputtingly elitist, and I hope this thread gets brought up as evidence next time it happens.
2. Good data is going to be very hard to find on this, but here's one person who was nearly driven from EA in part by II: https://www.facebook.com/li.../posts/10103242377246805...
ETA \"nearly\", since the person did return to EA", "timestamp": "1471549743"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806038615032", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806038615032", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Elizabeth 1) This person is not a part of our target audience, but someone who got engaged with InIn through LessWrong in a quite unusual way. 2) From his account, he is actually engaged with the EA movement, or else I misread the account.", "timestamp": "1471553343"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806038814632", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806038814632", "service": "fb", "text": "→ So you're saying you're fine driving out existing people in EA if you succeed at your goals?
We will never have the data on people who II drives out entirely. People who are pushed away but end up sticking around are going to be the best evidence we have access to.", "timestamp": "1471553463"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806038929402", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806038929402", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Elizabeth, that seems to be a quite hostile response to a correction to the statement you made. I'm curious if that's your way of indicating your acceptance of the correction?", "timestamp": "1471553556"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806043265712", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806043265712", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb it sounds like you're asserting that \"driven from EA\" is an inaccurate way of paraphrasing \"Intentional Insights almost made me leave the EA movement.\" I think it's accurate enough, but to go meta for a second \u2013 this is the exact same pattern as with your criticism of Jeff's timeline. This is confirmation that your update from that exchange was overly specific.", "timestamp": "1471554869"}, {"author": "Malcolm", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806044128982", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806044128982", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Christian wrote: \"Gleb is at the moment writing an post about publically speaking about AI risk. He shows the post to various people willing to look at the draft before posting it to those venues.
> Asking people beforehand to look at the draft is exactly the right solution to the problem of inappropriate posts landing in both fora.\"
Maybe. Although it subjects people to a cost in time\u2014one that is hard to avoid because if they don't respond with feedback, the post still goes live, just in worse shape.", "timestamp": "1471555386"}, {"author": "Oliver", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806063789582", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806063789582", "service": "fb", "text": "→ (This comment is only representative of my personal views and does not reflect the opinion of my employer CEA in any way)
I know that many people who are active in AI outreach have explicitly told Gleb to not publish posts related to the popularization of AI ideas, and that they expect the effect to be net negative.
When they now get a draft of one of his posts, it feels more like a threat than an opportunity, because if they do not violently object to the content of the post, it will get published and they might even get personally affiliated with it. This is because Gleb has, in the past, used the fact that he tried to get their input on the post, and their corresponding lack of objection, as evidence of their approval. He does stop when asked very explicitly about this, but that is a high-bar and very uncommon for people to take. Especially since people's reaction to such a strong request is often similar to what people are posting in this thread, i.e. asking \"why are you so harsh?\" and punishing the person who makes the request.", "timestamp": "1471563779"}, {"author": "Claire", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806068385372", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806068385372", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I have had the experience Oliver described (although mostly with posts that weren't about AI safety). I want to also note that because of extensive editing I've seen others do and tried to do myself (much more on those posts than on most posts other people have sent to me for feedback), a lot of the posts ended up much better by the time of publication. So, I think the published posts give a falsely positive impression of Gleb's abilities, because they were also the product of a lot of other people's time and effort.", "timestamp": "1471565663"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806068565012", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806068565012", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"Maybe. Although it subjects people to a cost in time\u2014one that is hard to avoid because if they don't respond with feedback, the post still goes live, just in worse shape.\"
Malcolm Indeed.
This is further complicated by the way in which Gleb has in the past used minimal or unwanted engagement with other groups to exploit their reputations, with problems along the lines Julia discussed above:
https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912...
Critical feedback from X may be subsequently cited along the lines of \"II has worked with/collaborated with prestigious X on this project.\"
[ETA: as Claire describes above, this has happened on other topics as well, and involves Gleb receiving credit for improvements to his work elicited by the fear of damage it will do otherwise.]", "timestamp": "1471565829"}, {"author": "Eva", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806071564002", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806071564002", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Oliver's comment above is scary. I feel like if this doesn't stop, we might want to make a public list of people who explicitly say they do not want to be associated and did not give approval either personally or as a representative of their organization for anything that might be attributed to them, pre-emptively. That would not be ideal for anyone, so I hope that this just stops here. I have not wanted to comment because it must really suck to feel at the centre of such a pile-on, but this absolutely must be addressed.", "timestamp": "1471567643"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806075106902", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806075106902", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Oliver I find myself aghast at your deceptive claims. Eva, sorry you were subjected to them, and the same goes for Carl and Claire.
Oliver You claim that \"I know that many people who are active in AI outreach have explicitly told Gleb to not publish posts related to the popularization of AI ideas.\" I do not know of any such \u201cmany people.\u201d I have not written any posts about popularizing AI ideas \u2013 check my publication history. I have previously considered writing one expressing concern about the Open AI project, and stopped when Elizer asked me not to write it. I am currently writing a post warning people away from communicating about AI casually.
You have written that \u201cif they do not violently object to the content of the post, it will get published and they might even get personally affiliated with it.\u201d I always ask people if they wish to be cited in the acknowledgments section. @claire can attest to that.
You have written that \u201cThis is because Gleb has, in the past, used the fact that he tried to get their input on the post, and their corresponding lack of objection, as evidence of their approval.\u201d This is complete nonsense. You are making a baseless claim without evidence. I have never taken lack of objection as evidence of approval.
I am very worried about how you, a central figure in the EA community and an employee of CEA, are making deceptive claims. Were you authorized to speak in this way by CEA?
Regarding other points raised, the only one I feel I should address is the quality of my posts. I very much owe their quality to reviewers, who have the option to review the post or not. I make sure to acknowledge those who choose to be acknowledged.
This is the end of my engagement here. I feel that tempers are really aroused with such deceptive claims being made.", "timestamp": "1471569045"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806079233632", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806079233632", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Kerry Vaughan comments on Gleb's post saying that 1. he did not give permission for the conversation to be posted, and 2. he objects to the implication that he endorses II's work. http://effective-altruism.com/.../effective_giving_vs.../", "timestamp": "1471570259"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806088370322", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806088370322", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Kerry's comment under that post:
\"As you know, you did not seek permission to post the notes from our 30 minute Skype conversation on the EA forum. Since you did not set any expectation that our private conversation would be public, I consider this post to be a clear violation of trust. Given that the post is already up, I am fine with leaving it here, but I would recommend that in the future you get explicit permission before posting the details of a private conversation.
Furthermore, this post reads to me as extremely self-promoting, which continues a general theme I\u2019ve noticed in your posts. You mention the name of your organization approximately every other paragraph and you seem to be trying hard to make it seem as though I endorse the work of Intentional Insights.
To be clear, I am not in a position to endorse Intentional Insights\u2019 work.\"", "timestamp": "1471574070"}, {"author": "Oliver", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806088554952", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806088554952", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I edited the comment above, and had this as a disclaimer on my other comments, but forgot it on the last one: These views are my views alone and do not reflect the opinion of my employer CEA.
You have indeed created public media about AI communications, namely this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwsWeTi6hxw&feature=youtu.be
It is also common for your posts to cite people who have commented on your posts as collaborators, even if their overall judgement of the post was in total negative. This is in somewhat of a grey area, but let's take a section from one of your most recent LW posts as an example:
\"Acknowledgments: For feedback on earlier stages of this draft, my gratitude to Jon, Laura Gamse, Ryan Carey, Malcolm, Matthijs Maas, Yaacov Tarko, Dony Christie, Jake Krycia, Remmelt Ellen, Alexander Semenychev, Ian Pritchford, Ed Chen, Lune Nekesa, Jo Duyvestyn, and others who wished to remain anonymous.\"
I am quite certain that some of the people cited here quite heavily object to the overall content of that post, and would prefer not to be seen as a supporter of it. Nevertheless, citing them in this way, does make it appear as if it is representative of their opinions. You have also claimed affiliation or endorsement from CEA without running that phrasing by CEA, and while fairly clearly making CEA employees uncomfortable with that phrasing. [this paragraph originally mentioned CFAR, and though I think it's original content is correct, I currently do not have any sources available to back this up, so I decided to use CEA as the central example here]
And ultimately, I know that Eliezer and me have both asked you to not post publicly about AI or associated issues. I also remember that at least one prominent EA in Oxford has asked you to stop promoting EA, with particular emphasis on the difficulty of far-future communication and scaring off academic audiences (I don't know whether they would be comfortable being put in the spotlight this way).
Here is also a thread in the LessWrong Facebook group (renamed to \"Brain Debugging Discussion\" because no admin from LW had the time to moderate it). And some quotes from it.:
(Here is the heading: \"I'm really worried about the OpenAI project, and want to use the platform and credibility I have with my leadership of Intentional Insights and public reputation to try to publish an op-ed in something like the Huffington Post highlighting the dangers of the OpenAI project. Now, most people don't think of AI as a threat: they either don't know much about it, or think of it as a futuristic thing that only nerds care about.
So the purpose of the op-ed is to use emotions, visualization, narrative, and other engaging tactics to do the following: tie AI to something people are concerned about, namely terrorism; highlight the dangers of a personal AI through framing it as a potential weapon; finally, provide people with clear next steps to take by encouraging people to learn about AI safety and donating to MIRI, as well as writing to OpenAI. This has the meta-goal, of course, of getting people to think about MIRI and AI safety.
I'd appreciate feedback on ways to optimize the op-ed to achieve the goals outlined above better. Keep in mind, the op-ed is limited to 700 words, and it's about at that limit, so if you suggest adding something, please keep it as succinct as possible, and ideally suggest taking something away as well. The op-ed draft is posted on LW. Thanks!\")
Eliezer responded to this with (after a bit more discussion): \"Gleb, please give up this project.\"
This was echoed by many others in that thread.
Gleb did respond to this with the praiseworthy update of:
\"Ok, based on feedback from Eliezer Yudkowsky, Mack Hidalgo, Eliot it sounds like this project would not be the optimal path to pursue at this time. I accept that, let go of sunken costs, and update to not doing it.\"
But, as many have echoed in this thread, Gleb did not make the general update that he probably should not be active in this domain, but learned the specific lesson to not pursue this specific project further. This resulted in the video I linked above and the conversation I saw between him and Eliezer during EAG.
Based on this evidence, I think both the connotation and the denotation of the three core statements in my last comment is accurate:
\"I know that many people who are active in AI outreach have explicitly told Gleb to not publish posts related to the popularization of AI ideas, and that they expect the effect to be net negative. \" (as evidenced by the FB thread above)
and
\"When they now get a draft of one of his posts, it feels more like a threat than an opportunity, because if they do not violently object to the content of the post, it will get published and they might even get personally affiliated with it.\" (as evidenced by Claire's posts above and the one I cited the section from and my personal experience being invited to edit one of his posts, though I agree that this one should maybe be phrased a bit weaker)
and
\"This is because Gleb has, in the past, used the fact that he tried to get their input on the post, and their corresponding lack of objection, as evidence of their approval. He does stop when asked very explicitly about this, but that is a high-bar and very uncommon for people to take. Especially since people's reaction to such a strong request is often similar to what people are posting in this thread, i.e. asking \"why are you so harsh?\" and punishing the person who makes the request.\" (as evidenced by Claire's comment and Kerry's comment on the EA Forum)
Gleb, please do not accuse me of making deceptive claims. All of the things I mentioned in my last two posts are accurate, and though I think I might have been able to phrase things a tiny bit more nicely, or more precisely, I think the evidence I cite here makes it clear that I did not lie, and did not make up any false claims.", "timestamp": "1471574198"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806090161732", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806090161732", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"You have written that \u201cThis is because Gleb has, in the past, used the fact that he tried to get their input on the post, and their corresponding lack of objection, as evidence of their approval.\u201d This is complete nonsense. You are making a baseless claim without evidence. I have never taken lack of objection as evidence of approval.\"
Juxtaposing this statement with Kerry's comment, we have another clear case of the pattern exemplified by Gleb claiming he did not ask for his staff to upvote his comments in EA forums and Less Wrong after writing this:
\"\"We published it on the blog of TLYCS, on the EA forum, and on LessWrong, and I strongly encourage those of you with EA Forum and LessWrong accounts to vote/comment on the pieces there, and leave comments on the blog of TLYCS
[links snipped]
PS: Remember, there are plenty of folks hostile to Intentional Insights mission of getting messages about effective giving to a broad audience, and they frequently downvote our posts regardless of the content of the post. You can make a difference through your votes :-)\"\".
https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912...", "timestamp": "1471575079"}, {"author": "Vipul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=805993181082&reply_comment_id=806092147752", "anchor": "fb-805993181082_806092147752", "service": "fb", "text": "→ btw, here is my previous critique of Gleb's article, just to give an idea of why I am critical of his content in general: https://www.facebook.com/.../permalink/529362923902514/...", "timestamp": "1471576206"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806018829682", "anchor": "fb-806018829682", "service": "fb", "text": "A number of folks have expressed concerns over whether readers of pieces produced by Intentional Insights targeted at broad venues might create negative perceptions about Effective Altruism-affiliated organizations through articles that come across as excessively salesy, so I wanted to address this concern in particular.
Let\u2019s take a specific example of a very maintream venue, Lifehack, for which we write. This is one of the top self-improvement sites in the world. We can take as given that the audience of Lifehack would generally read this site because they like the articles written there. In other words, to them the articles are their natural mode of discourse, the way they engage with the world. Whatever is written there is what they *like* - otherwise, they would not read it.
Let\u2019s take a look at two recent articles published there:
http://www.lifehack.org/.../when-its-time-to-take-snoring...
http://www.lifehack.org/.../7-healthy-comfort-foods-to...
Do they come off as salesy, scammy, and markety to you? Well, that\u2019s the natural discourse of people who read Lifehack. They don\u2019t come off as anything but appropriate to Lifehack readers, otherwise Lifehack editors would not accept them. Believe me, they rejected plenty of InIn articles on effective giving until we learned to write in the Lifehack-appropriate lingo, for instance this piece:
http://www.lifehack.org/357644/the-secret-giving-wisely
Given that: 1) The audience for Lifehack likes the Lifehack style and finds it natural, and 2) That the editors rejected many pieces we wrote for Lifehack until we expressed it in this listicle-style format, what would be your best guess of what happens when a person who is a regular reader of Lifehack reads this piece, written in a style she regularly reads and finds natural?
A) She dislikes the article\u2019s style, and therefore is put off from effective giving concepts and the EA meta-charities mentioned in the piece
B) She likes the article\u2019s style, and is therefore drawn to effective giving concepts and the EA meta-charities mentioned in the piece
I\u2019d appreciate you citing a numerical confidence in percentage terms for your guess. Thanks :-)", "timestamp": "1471546241"}, {"author": "Bernadette", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806018829682&reply_comment_id=806049373472", "anchor": "fb-806018829682_806049373472", "service": "fb", "text": "→ but these articles won't be restricted in exposure to people who seek out life hack articles since you actively share and promote them through advertising. Many people who dislike the style could encounter it. For those people that could be enough to link the idea \"effective giving\" with \"shallow listicle stuff that's not substantial\".", "timestamp": "1471557773"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806018829682&reply_comment_id=806055366462", "anchor": "fb-806018829682_806055366462", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Bernadette we promote them through advertising to those who are fans of our FB page, and thus are part of the audience that reads Lifehack.org, This is our target demographic, the main group we're orienting toward to spread the message of effective giving - the readers of Lifehack.org, Psychology Today, etc. People who are used to this style of article and like it. This is what our public-facing model is about :-)", "timestamp": "1471559911"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806018829682&reply_comment_id=806071015102", "anchor": "fb-806018829682_806071015102", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I'd be pretty unhappy for people discovering EA through some of the higher quality channels were to find the works below. I think they'd significantly lower their perception of the quality of the movement and the people in it.
Call EAs 'Superdonors': http://intentionalinsights.org/be-a-superdonor-promoting...
Badly designed clothing: https://www.facebook.com/groups/localea/permalink/1182573298438678/?__mref=message_bubble
Call EAs 'Everyday Heroes': http://effective-altruism.com/.../announcing_everyday.../", "timestamp": "1471567216"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806018829682&reply_comment_id=806071439252", "anchor": "fb-806018829682_806071439252", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Ben, we target our content to each venue. Editors would not let our content through if it was not a good fit for their audience. Here's an example of a post in a more high-brow venue: http://time.com/4257876/wounded-warrior-project-scandal/ So any time a post is published in a venue controlled by an editor, the editor makes sure it's a good fit for their content.", "timestamp": "1471567564"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806018829682&reply_comment_id=806071504122", "anchor": "fb-806018829682_806071504122", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Gleb Yup, that doesn't respond to my point.", "timestamp": "1471567607"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806018829682&reply_comment_id=806071544042", "anchor": "fb-806018829682_806071544042", "service": "fb", "text": "→ If someone reads \"Doing Good Better\" then finds your work, they will severely downgrade their assessment of EA.", "timestamp": "1471567636"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806018829682&reply_comment_id=806086748572", "anchor": "fb-806018829682_806086748572", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The Lifehacker article doesn't seem that bad to me. It's a fairly direct lifehack pitch for GD (which has a fairly simple and robust case with little controversy), which makes some reference to the evidence. It mentions and links to GiveWell, other organizations, and effective altruism in a fairly clean and simple way.
I would encourage people to separate the general issue of EA popularization from problems specific to II's implementation and actions. I think there is a lot of space for popularization to do good and that it is inevitable that popularization involves some simplification (hopefully with reference to let readers go deeper into the complexities).
The pattern of misleading self-promotion tactics, including ones targeted at the EA community or appropriating the names of EAs and EA organizations, and social media statistics exaggerated (likely accidentally) with clickfarms are worth addressing in their own right, and demand a different kind of response.
Vipul wrote:
\"Most ideas are nuanced and complex. I don't think EA ideas are inherently far more complex. Nor did I get good reason to believe that they are especially dangerous to simplify. What makes you think EA deserves special treatment?\"
I think there are issues EA works on that are especially sensitive to errors in popularization, especially popularization which is strongly branded as representing the movement. But cash transfers doesn't seem like one of them.
However, they could be hurt by scandal or other very offputting things being identified with them, or EA. [ETA: and as Vipul mentions, other II articles have larger problems.]", "timestamp": "1471573698"}, {"author": "Oliver", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806018829682&reply_comment_id=806089597862", "anchor": "fb-806018829682_806089597862", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Agree with Carl here and think that as long as Gleb does not post things like the above on EA-related forums, or does not try to affiliate Intentional Insights with EA, I am happy about such posts existing (though I would still expect their impact to be quite low).
That said, given my experience with Gleb so far, I do not think that the general case of him linking directly to EA-affiliated sources is a good idea, since I think the average case of InIn linking to these organizations is net negative, and I do not know how to communicate to Gleb to only post the one's that I expect to be beneficial. (or at least chose a mixture to be net-beneficial)", "timestamp": "1471574789"}, {"author": "Tom", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806018829682&reply_comment_id=806136613642", "anchor": "fb-806018829682_806136613642", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Bernadette does that mean you don't think people who like to read Lifehacker, and like its style of writing, should be involved in EA at all, or even exposed to ideas like effective giving? For any attempt to grab their interest will probably run some risk of accidentally exposing others to unreformed ideas about effective giving.", "timestamp": "1471607032"}, {"author": "Bernadette", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806018829682&reply_comment_id=806137526812", "anchor": "fb-806018829682_806137526812", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Tom no that's not what I was getting at. I was trying to point out a flaw in the way Gleb was framing this question. Throughout this and other discussions with him, I've noticed a tendency to deflect criticism of the content of his out put by defining the critic as 'not the target audience'.
In this case he was suggesting the articles he writes for LifeHack can't have any negative consequences from being clickbaity or fitting a style people have found obnoxious because they will only be read by people who seek out material of a similar tone.
My objection to this is that he promotes and disseminates his work (through InIn's own social media channels and paid advertisement). I'm not convinced that saying he only promotes it to fans of his page avoids this issue, because why would we think every \"fans of our FB page, and thus are part of the audience that reads Lifehack.org\"? Sure, some might be, but I don't see reason to think all are, and this It doesn't fit with the other channels they've pursed (Time, Huffington Post etc). (I didn't post to say I found Gleb's response unconvincing because this discussion has partly got out of and between me posting my comment and coming back today he's tapped out of the discussion, which is fair).
I probably agree with Carl and Oliver that posting articles in these arenas only is unlikely to have any bad outcomes, but that would require InIn to be walled off from other EA affiliated organisations like TLYCS, which they currently are not.", "timestamp": "1471607942"}, {"author": "Henry", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806018829682&reply_comment_id=806191074502", "anchor": "fb-806018829682_806191074502", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Bernadette, does reading listverse-esque Cracked articles about the top ten coolest looking nebulas or whatever lower your opinion of NASA?
Effective giving is still a nascent idea. It's strong in certain circles, but hasn't really penetrated deep into a general audience. Won't EAers need to modify their outreach to appeal to a broader, more inclusive audience?", "timestamp": "1471632589"}, {"author": "Oliver", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806069203732", "anchor": "fb-806069203732", "service": "fb", "text": "(This post only contains my personal opinions and do not reflect the opinions of my employer CEA in any way)
I am very happy for you to post random things on Lifehack, as long as you stay away from any EA related Facebook groups or forums, and do not publicly affiliate yourself or your organization with Effective Altruism.
When I and others in this thread mean \"stop\" we don't mean \"stop doing everything you are doing\", we are saying \"please take many more steps in disassociating yourself from EA and the EA brand, and stop trying to use the EA community as a tool for engagement\". People's judgement of what the \"archetypical EA organization\" looks like is heavily influenced by the actions of InIn, since the total set of organizations people perceive to be in that class is very small. You have taken many steps to be associated with Effective Altruism. And what I and others in this thread are trying to say is that you are abusing the trust that has been established between members of EA and organizations associated with Effective Altruism, and between EA organizations themselves.
It is an inconvenient but true fact that many members of EA use a heuristic of trusting organizations that have been founded by members of the Effective Altruism community. It is also an inconvenient but true fact that many outsiders look at organizations affiliated with Effective Altruism to judge the overall quality of the work produced by this community.
Trusting organizations that are inside EA to be effective, or at least highly transparent, has historically been a fairly accurate heuristic. This is because the community is exerting strong social pressures on what organizations are founded, and which behavior is rewarded (and all organizations are experiencing that pressure, which I can easily attest to as a current employee of CEA and past employee of EA Outreach). As EA grows this heuristic will become less accurate, but since the outside world will continue to judge EA by the organizations affiliating with it, being selective about who gets perceived to be affiliated with EA is an important component of making EA successful.
Though there are many people who believe that the treatment Gleb has received is harsh or unfair, which I think is a justifiable position, I think there are very few people who think that Intentional Insights has had a positive effect on helping EA get traction among its core audience. Who exactly that audience is, is somewhat disputable, but it is very obvious that affiliation with Intentional Insights has not been positive in attracting the people that we expect to be most impactful and to make the biggest difference by being part of this community. This is something Gleb himself has admitted many times, which is why he chose to affiliate with \"Effective Giving\" instead of EA directly.
What I would like to see is Gleb taking action on the following specific requests:
+ Neither Gleb nor anyone associated with Intentional Insights posts on the EA Forum about work related to Intentional Insights
+ Neither Gleb nor anyone associated with InIn posts in EA Facebook groups about work related to Intentional Insights
+ Neither Gleb nor anyone associated with InIn uses the concepts of \"Effective Altruism\", \"Effective Giving\" or any other concept that is part of a major funnel into the EA community in their public media.
+ Neither Gleb nor anyone associated with InIn posts on EA labeled or related Mailing lists about work related to Intentional Insights
+ Neither Gleb nor anyone associated with InIn calls themselves an \"Effective Altruist organization\" in public media, or in private forums. Or otherwise tries to affiliate themselves with other organizations who are considered to be \"EA organizations\"
These requests are large, but Gleb has shown in the past that he does not follow the spirit of requests, but the absolute letter of it. The list above is the only list of specific requests that I could come up with, that would solve the problem at hand, while being only followed to the letter and not the spirit.
Because of Gleb's marketing tactics, the experience for the average engaged member of the EA community has consisted to 5%-10% of Gleb's post. The experience of many newcomers and outsiders to EA has consisted similarly to 5%-10% of content by Gleb. Though this is anecdotal, and I did not do a rigorous analysis of this, I do no think there is a single EA I know who does not know of Gleb's work, though there are many that do not know about Giving What We Can.
People use the affect heuristic, and people will judge the internal experience of this community as well as the external brand of the community proportional to their affective exposure. Gleb has significantly worsened the experience of almost everyone in EA, and many people coming into EA, dozens of whom have expressed so in this thread, and many more who have only upvoted and liked posts that have highlighted the issues.
Please, respond to this comment if you honestly think that Gleb's work had a positive influence on the experience of members of the EA community, or on the public perception of Effective Altruism. Dealing with situations like this is a difficult coordination problem, and if the vast majority of members of this community think that Gleb's work has negative consequences for the world, we should take action on that. I do not think Gleb himself will take sufficient action, unless there is a request that makes the vote of the majority of the community clear.", "timestamp": "1471566219"}, {"author": "Claire", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806069203732&reply_comment_id=806083904272", "anchor": "fb-806069203732_806083904272", "service": "fb", "text": "→ (speaking for myself, not my employer) Based on the evidence of wrongdoing I know of now and an assumption that more evidence is not uncovered (an assumption I think is more likely than not to be incorrect) I wonder if a temporary ban (maybe 3 months to a year) would be more appropriate. People + orgs make big mistakes, and sometimes learn from them and overcome them (e.g. GiveWell, IMO). It seems like you get most of the benefits with a temporary ban (plus a two-strike policy) as with permanent exile. Curious what others think.", "timestamp": "1471572430"}, {"author": "Raymond", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806069203732&reply_comment_id=806086244582", "anchor": "fb-806069203732_806086244582", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I like Claire's idea.", "timestamp": "1471573362"}, {"author": "Oliver", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806069203732&reply_comment_id=806089707642", "anchor": "fb-806069203732_806089707642", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I think a temporary ban is a decent solution to this problem, though I would want to define a small committee who will decide on what to do in this specific case in case things do not get better. I would really prefer to avoid another mega-thread, and with a temporary ban I would give a 20%-30% chance of such a thing happening again before some form of consensus is built.", "timestamp": "1471574872"}, {"author": "Gregory", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806069203732&reply_comment_id=806166608532", "anchor": "fb-806069203732_806166608532", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I would worry about the sort of politburo like apparatus required to administer these temporary bans. That said, informal methods also have their pitfalls.", "timestamp": "1471621696"}, {"author": "Christian", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806069203732&reply_comment_id=806467006532", "anchor": "fb-806069203732_806467006532", "service": "fb", "text": "→ To start with transparancy: I wrote a lot of criticism and feedback of Gleb on LW, that's open to see for everybody. I also give Gleb feedback from time to time when he shares the Google doc of a draft of an article. Apart from that I have never donated money to InIn or otherwise have a stake in InIn.
You can make a decision to ban Gleb from the EA forum or the facebook group but you can't make a decision to ban him from using the term \"Effective Altruism\" or \"Effective Giving\". I think it's valuable to work towards seeking a consensus.
As far as your rules go I'm not exactly clear what you mean with \"associate\". When Gleb links to AMF does that count as \"associating with an EA organisation\"?
From the data that Gleb offers among 6000 people driven to The Life You Can Save 12% or 500 people made a donation. That seems to me like a significant impact. If you don't believe the numbers, I think it might be worthwhile asking The Life You Can Save to also be a source. Those people might not be core EA community members but they donate to effective charities and that matters.
In addition to direct traffic the SEO effects also matter. If articles published in high traffic venues by Gleb link to EA websites that means those websites will get more traffic. New core community members might land in the community as a result of EA websites ranking better on Google because of Gleb's work without them knowing that Gleb had anything to do with it.
Given what Gleb wrote in his strategic plan the Givewell recommended charities are appreciative of traffic from Gleb to the point that they are willing to share impact numbers with him. As far as I can see nobody from those charities or GiveWell has spoken up in this thread and expressed a desire that Gleb stops linking to them.", "timestamp": "1471774975"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806069203732&reply_comment_id=806470000532", "anchor": "fb-806069203732_806470000532", "service": "fb", "text": "→ (I'm in the process of talking to TLYCS to back up the numbers. I think it's nearly certain that far fewer than 600 people per post (12% of 5k views) donated.)", "timestamp": "1471778368"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806069203732&reply_comment_id=807030048192", "anchor": "fb-806069203732_807030048192", "service": "fb", "text": "→ We have an answer now: instead of 600 donations per post it was 2-3 donations ever. More details: https://www.jefftk.com/.../conversation-with-gleb-of...", "timestamp": "1472036909"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806075690732", "anchor": "fb-806075690732", "service": "fb", "text": "At this point, I'm ending my engagement with this thread, and similar threads going on elsewhere on FB. A lot of people have said things that I think they will later regret, and I feel that my continuing to engage will exacerbate this problem. I look forward to taking the lessons learned, mulling them over time, and figuring out how to work better to minimize suffering and advance global flourishing. Thanks for the feedback! :-)", "timestamp": "1471569266"}, {"author": "Vipul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332", "anchor": "fb-806413713332", "service": "fb", "text": "TL;DR: Take Gleb out of the limelight, and focus on identifying appropriate norms, boundaries, and underlying rationales around self-promotion, disclosure, statistics, etc.
Now that this thread has mostly concluded, I thought I'd weigh in on the most constructive possible next steps.
I think Gleb's behavior, while regrettable in some ways, is not that far out of the norms set both within the EA community and in the world at large. Rather than simply cataloguing his excesses and misdeeds, I propose a more constructive next step, both to limit any further negative interaction for this particular case and to avoid other people getting into this sort of trouble.
My proposal is that Jeff (or whoever else wants) write a blog post with a set of ideas and guidelines around disclosure of institutional and financial affiliation, use of numbers or statistics in marketing, use of social proof, etc. These guidelines obviously cannot (and will not) be binding on anybody but they will help people understand Jeff's thinking around the boundaries of self-promotion. And others, through feedback and responses to the post, can offer their own guidelines and help build more community knowledge around best practice.
I'm concerned that a lot of these guidelines aren't clear. A lot of things Gleb does are completely standard practice in sales and marketing, and in the nonprofit world at large. And some of these are also done by people in the EA community and other communities penumbral to EA (in different ways) fairly regularly. This makes it hard for an outside observer to understand where exactly the line is being drawn. Uncharitable outsiders may conclude hypocrisy or lack of self-awareness in the movement.
Examples:
- People have regularly exaggerated claims of exponential and rapid growth of the EA movement and community. This includes people affiliated with organizations that plausibly benefit financially from exaggerated beliefs about EA's growth rate. My general interpretation of their position is that they believe in things, and are selecting the evidence that most fits their beliefs and the story they are passionate about (and may even be unaware of contradictory narratives). Few of them have been called out on it, the way Gleb is called out for alleged exaggeration of social media numbers (exaggeration that is often a result of factors outside Gleb's control -- such as bots responding to payment to Facebook for content promotion, not at his behest, or Facebook reporting likes + comments + shares as shares, something that is not very intuitive and a major source of confusion for people, as Linchuan and Jacy have noted).
- People within the EA community and outside it often fail to provide adequate complete disclosure. See e.g. http://effective-altruism.com/.../june_2016_givewell.../83t (where Claire did not disclose that she works at GiveWell, even though the comment was, prima facie, specifically about GiveWell's position in the EA community) and e.g. Ben, who initially did not disclose his former affiliation with GiveWell in a post that heavily discussed GiveWell (he did add the disclosure after I pointed it out to him, see e.g. https://www.facebook.com/benjamin.r.../posts/578491328305...).
- In general, people within the EA community, the rationality community, and elsewhere, often fail to disclose relevant real-world associations. Most of Bryan Caplan's blog posts where he talks of Tyler Cowen don't mention that Tyler Cowen helped him get his current job. They may not even mention that they are professors together in the same university. Even when he does disclose relationships, they aren't complete. For instance, in https://www.amazon.com/.../REIMU12F4KAMU/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt... Caplan discloses that Jones was a co-blogger and debate partner but not that they are funded by the same employer.
As another (more directly relevant) example, Jeff, in his critique of Intentional Insights, fails to clearly disclose that he and his wife have funded (to a significant extent!) organizations with an outreach mission sufficiently competitive with InIn that he could be construed as having a direct vested interest in the matter (also, his wife sits on the board of directors of GiveWell).
None of these associations are hidden per se, but the fact that they aren't disclosed clearly means that outsiders (or even insiders) who chance upon these threads may fail to correct for the biases that could creep in from these associations.
- Not-very-insightful comments by elites are admired, while similar comments by unknown people are seen as vote-stuffing. For instance, Carl's simple, straightforward comment \"Thanks for the useful public service Issa! Also, Vipul for sponsoring it.\" at http://effective-altruism.com/.../june_2016_givewell.../83h got 9 upvotes! Whereas similar comments on posts by Gleb's folks are treated as evincing poor understanding of the material.
- I've already mentioned this earlier, but Gleb's aggressive promotional posting of content is comparable with the level of people like Robert (promoting 80,000 Hours material) or Tyler (mass-posting about EA Global).", "timestamp": "1471739439"}, {"author": "Vipul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806415285182", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806415285182", "service": "fb", "text": "→ To be clear, I really appreciate Carl's supportive comment, and was one of its 9 upvoters :). However, this post wasn't about the comment per se but rather around the apparent double standard.", "timestamp": "1471740506"}, {"author": "Vipul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806415489772", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806415489772", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Nor do I personally think any of the other examples is particularly egregious. Again, the point wasn't to be critical of them but rather to note what might seem like a double standard.", "timestamp": "1471740696"}, {"author": "Rob", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806419776182", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806419776182", "service": "fb", "text": "→ It sounds like Jeff and others are saying that it's important for EA organizations \u2014 especially outreach/meta orgs like CEA and InIn, whose activities can have a big impact on all the other EA orgs \u2014 to self-promote in rough proportion to how strong the case is that they're having a positive impact thereby and not a negative one. If it's hard to quantify the impact, one proxy for this is to build a consensus among EAs that you're doing extremely important work, and only scale up self-promotion as that consensus becomes stronger. Even if EAs are sometimes wrong and biased, this is plausibly a good heuristic for keeping the peace within EA.
This is not really the kind of rule that admits of codification, though. There's no easy way to precisely state how much support your org needs before it can do such-and-such amount of self-promotion within EA. The right way to address this is probably to just let individuals organically tell you if they think you're doing too much self-promotion, and be responsive to criticisms. It sounds like people are concerned that Gleb has exhibited a pattern of not changing his behavior sufficiently in response to these ad-hoc criticisms, and that some of his activities are subverting the mechanisms by which community members reach consensus and evaluate what the consensus is in the first place. The whole idea of letting organizations gradually prove themselves in the marketplace of ideas and accumulate social capital from other vetted EAs until they're trusted enough to get more leeway gets compromised if you repeatedly engage in astroturfing, repeatedly publicly inflate your ties to other EA organizations, repeatedly cite support from contractors as though it were support from miscellaneous community members, are repeatedly sloppy with the key numbers you cite to demonstrate your organization's impact, etc., etc.
Again, it makes sense that EAs who have built up a certain amount of trust (or who are just well-known by the other regulars in the community) wouldn't need to disclose all of their relationships every time they write a quick Facebook comment. But if Rob Wiblin is trying to demonstrate that a certain policy has broad community support within EA, and he does this by citing a big list of people he says agree with him without mentioning that they're 80k contractors, people are likely to object even though Rob Wiblin has built up a lot of trust. If he does this repeatedly, then he and 80k pay the penalty and lose their hard-won trust.
GiveWell got into a ton of trouble for astroturfing back in 2007; and I think that Rob would get in lots of trouble today if his hypothetical unknown-to-the-community contractors left a bunch of comments like \"Wow! 80,000 sounds like a great idea! Thanks for this info!\" and he replied \"Glad you agree! Please share and help spread the word!\", without either Rob or the contractor disclosing that they're co-workers. Established EA orgs /are/ expected to meet certain rough common-sense standards of honesty and transparency, and when they mess up (as GiveWell did 9 years ago), they risk permanently losing their community support if they don't promptly and systematically change their ways, or don't provide strong signals that they're going to keep similar mistakes from happening again. I think EAs are pretty forgiving and sensitive to context and practicalities (and sensitive to the challenges of navigating fuzzy networks of trust and accountability) -- but not infinitely so. There presumably has to be some point at which patterns of misleading words result in censure, though people can reasonably disagree about where that point is.", "timestamp": "1471743247"}, {"author": "Rob", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806422341042", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806422341042", "service": "fb", "text": "→ If anyone would like to complain about 80,000 Hours' content marketing strategies please contact me directly.
While they may be a bit annoying to people already within EA who see our posts in their feeds multiple times, I can see the analytics, and they expose a large number of new readers to EA content that has been demonstrated to deliver useful results (in the form of career plan changes). So I think they are worth it on balance.
I would never deny that I ask people involved in the EA movement, including our colleagues, to like/post our content in order to increase the exposure it gets in the outside world (and also drive down the cost per click required when we pay to 'boost' our page's posts). Sometimes many people do this; sometimes only a few do - it depends how much they like the content and think their friends would enjoy reading it.
Far from hiding that I do that, I am proud for people to see that I am competent at my job as the leader of 80,000 Hours' social media outreach.
More generally, it would be valuable for me to not be tagged into lengthy Facebook arguments. I aspire to avoid reading these things for the sake of my sanity and productivity, and I suspect I'm not the only one. (Unfortunately Facebook has no setting that prevents people from tagging you in comments.)
https://lovelace-media.imgix.net/.../1620b570-f175-0133...?", "timestamp": "1471744708"}, {"author": "Vipul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806422490742", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806422490742", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I'll avoid tagging you in the future, though it will increase the risk of you being unaware of discussions where you are referenced.
Facebook is reasonably clever about stopping people who tag lots of people in comments: https://www.facebook.com/vipulnaik.r/posts/10209254384612584", "timestamp": "1471744849"}, {"author": "Rob", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806423309102", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806423309102", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Hey Vipul yes I appreciate it's intended to be pro-social. Unfortunately I could easily sink an hour or two reading the many comments on this thread - then chime in and make it go on even longer. It's best to avoid those temptations.
Furthermore, being exposed to any interpersonal conflict online is stressful to me, even if I'm not directly involved.
So I think on balance I'd rather stay out most of the time and trust matters to resolve themselves in my absence as they almost always do. At some point I'll find out what I need to know from threads I don't read.", "timestamp": "1471745124"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806432006672", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806432006672", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Vipul
Some things I would like to agree with and elaborate on:
-I would be pleased to see a writeup such as you suggest above
-there is a huge range of disclosure behaviors and, distinctions can be subtle,
-there are many cases where more disclosure would be better in the EA community, or where people make errors or use rhetoric that I object to as misleading, as documented by my incessant commenting about them
-some of these practices are common in marketing, while others are not; of the common practices some should be accepted, while others are common but still problematic, particularly in the context of attempts to raise standards of discourse
-my belief is that Gleb sincerely wants to do good, and that, e.g. likely the dominance of fake accounts in II's facebook likes was an unintended result of ad promotion
-issues about deceptive claims should be separated from general strategic disagreements about things like popularization
However, you write:
\"I think Gleb's behavior, while regrettable in some ways, is not that far out of the norms set both within the EA community and in the world at large.\"
I have spent a lot of time in hundreds of comments and discussions over the years criticizing numbers and statements from EA organizations, including those that I worked for/with, when I thought they had overstated their case.
I think that this case has been especially troubling:
-the pattern of misleading self-promoting statements (by error or choice) is recurrent across multiple areas, and has been resistant to multiple attempts to address it, despite local changes
-while I agree that the statements were generally not subjectively perceived as false, the pattern of literally true statements (at least under some, perhaps strained, interpretation) conveying false impressions, and failure to check questionable self-promoting claims can be negligent or deceptive without malice
-some of the statements have been egregious enough to be very troubling individually in undermining norms of honesty, such as Gleb's denial that he solicited coordinated upvotes from his staff on EA fora and LW when he had done so with language that powerfully communicated the message to staff with only a fig leaf of (im)plausible deniability:
https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912...
-collectively the misrepresentations would seem to substantially overstate the EA case for II, which emphasizes its social media reach, while II has been seeking funds and staff from the EA community, as well as taking up substantial time and bandwidth in the community
-attempts to suggest endorsement from EA organizations when it did not exist, while fundraising from the donors of those organizations
In addition to reinforcing the general principles, this is relevant information that should be available for evaluation of II in the future (as is the case for other charities and EA organizations, e.g. GiveWell's astroturfing, or SCI's issues with accurate communication with GiveWell) by funders, potential employees and others who might need it.
Disclosure: I have done paid work for FHI, MIRI, and to a more limited extent CEA and GiveWell/OPP. My spouse works for CFAR, and I have extensive social ties in the EA community.", "timestamp": "1471748807"}, {"author": "Vipul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806436422822", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806436422822", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Carl, I believe we are mostly in agreement. I agree that the information you have collected would be important and valuable for anybody interested in donating to, working for, or working with Intentional Insights. Therefore, this information should be linked to in response to any solicitations that Gleb makes to the EA community for funding, collaboration, or support. However, if he is not making such solicitations, I don't think this information needs to be announced or widely circulated.", "timestamp": "1471750711"}, {"author": "Rob", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806436647372", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806436647372", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The link Carl provided above was extra surprising and worrying to me because Gleb never acknowledged that his earlier statement was (at the very least) less than fully forthcoming, and almost certain to give people the wrong impression. He instead wrote: \"I stated exactly what I did earlier, and was very clear about it.\" This strikes me as super weird. As far as I'm aware, Gleb still has yet to acknowledge that there was anything misleading about his summary.", "timestamp": "1471750894"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806440075502", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806440075502", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Vipul There is an issue with offline solicitations (I believe this discussion was set off by offline InIn fundraising at EA Global, and there were additional cases of misleading fundraising appeals by InIn offline not mentioned in the thread above), but I think I agree with the general thrust so long as the people being approached for funding and other resources reliably access the info.", "timestamp": "1471752515"}, {"author": "Arjun", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806475085342", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806475085342", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Vipul do you have any information on hand about people exaggerating the rate of growth of EA? I've seen several growth claims over time but don't remember seeing any of them critiqued. I'm concerned I might have internalized overly optimistic statistics.", "timestamp": "1471781841"}, {"author": "Vipul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806496662102", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806496662102", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"do you have any information on hand about people exaggerating the rate of growth of EA\"
My point was more that there is no single metric that can define the \"rate of growth of EA\" and that different metrics give widely divergent conclusions. For instance, I am attaching a graph of monthly web traffic to the EA Forum since September 2014. Notice the absence of clear net growth since launch.
See also:
https://www.facebook.com/vipulnaik.r/posts/10207858334952215 and you can see the numbers here: http://wikipediaviews.org/displayviewsformultiplemonths... Upshot: traffic to GiveWell's Wikipedia page saw an year-over-year drop from 2015 to 2016.
https://www.facebook.com/vipulnaik.r/posts/10207082656600741 for which you can see updated numbers at http://wikipediaviews.org/displayviewsformultiplemonths... Upshot: Traffic to the Effective altruism Wikipedia page has growth by ~10% year-over-year if you look at the last few months, which is growth but a far cry from rapid.
Or see http://blog.givewell.org/.../update-givewells-web.../... (comment by Issa; disclosure: I originally pointed out the factoid that he then looked into in order to post a public comment).", "timestamp": "1471794485"}, {"author": "Vipul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806497480462", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806497480462", "service": "fb", "text": "→ As for whether people claim that EA is growing rapidly, here's the most recent example I could find:
http://library.fora.tv/.../07/past_present_and_future_of_ea
Tara Mac Aulay [01:20 - 01:33]: And then, this happened (rapid growth graph of GWWC members). EA has been growing. This graph shows growth of Giving What We Can members. But if you look at anything, any metric, it will show the same kind of thing. We've grown so much.", "timestamp": "1471794825"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806514865622", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806514865622", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Vipul I agree universal language there is not right., and I would like it not to be used in that way in future.
But when money moved, donors, organization members, event attendance and other core metrics have been growing tremendously, the web metrics you favor are somewhat missing the point.
And they have misled you in the past to expect less growth on core metrics than actually happened:
http://effective-altruism.com/.../givewell_money_moved.../
So I think this is far less material than the misrepresentations by InIn, which were much more relevant to its core case and affected fundraising attempts aimed at EAs.", "timestamp": "1471799365"}, {"author": "Gleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806635688492", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806635688492", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Rob having looked back, I acknowledge that my statement was less than fully forthcoming. I was feeling attacked and emotional when I made that statement, and regret making it in the way I did. There were a couple of other statements I regretted on the thread as well. Don't want to discuss them, just want you to know I understand where you're coming from, and I could have done better.", "timestamp": "1471842025"}, {"author": "Rob", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806636461942", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806636461942", "service": "fb", "text": "→ OK! Thanks for revisiting that, Gleb. I think that's normal, for what it's worth -- the general urge to be defensive or double down when publicly attacked is just a human thing, and it's part of why big public debates like this are a poor first resort in settling disputes. I did want to be go back and revisit that incident to make sure that we converged about it eventually, though. 'Pattern of not being entirely forthcoming' is qualitatively different from 'pattern of not being entirely forthcoming plus inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the problem'. There are a lot fewer mediation options available when people can't agree about good discourse norms than when people make mistakes but basically agree on what the norms should probably look like.", "timestamp": "1471842620"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806789934382", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806789934382", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Vipul, I strongly object to \"not that far out of the norm,\" but agree with your suggestion that it would be beneficial to work out some more explicit public suggestions for what kinds of disclosures would be helpful.", "timestamp": "1471908177"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806931395892", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806931395892", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I also strongly object to \"not that far out of the norm\". Throughout the thread 80K has been used as an example of an organization that is at the edge of the community norms, and InIn's behavior is clearly and drastically further afield than 80K's. And that's just on marketing methods; 80K doesn't have anything remotely like InIn's pattern of deceptive and misleading statements.
While an attempt at a public listing of suggestions sounds potentially useful, it will by its nature never reach complete coverage of community norms. There will always be some level of responsibility that individuals and organizations must take on themselves to gain an understanding of the community norms and update based on feedback. Those updates must be about the general norms, not about specific concrete behaviors. Lack of public guidelines will, in my mind, never be a sufficient excuse for repeated failure to learn and follow the community norms.
Part of being in any community means learning what membership in that community entails; if you're incapable of doing that, I think you're just incapable of being a member. We should definitely endeavor to make that learning process easier, but there is only so much we can do. The number of hours of effort put into this case (easily in the hundreds) are, from my perspective, far above and beyond any reasonable expectation.", "timestamp": "1471985046"}, {"author": "Raymond", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806933052572", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806933052572", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I think there should be a site of EA norms, but would have the first and most emphasized norm be the thing Nathan just said.", "timestamp": "1471985816"}, {"author": "Raymond", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=806933541592", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_806933541592", "service": "fb", "text": "→ (Also, I'd like one of the norms to be a suggestion on how to handle situations like this one in a way that accomplish the goal while being less dogpile-y and looking like a drama storm to bystanders. I think it was fairly inevitable in this case but like to think we can figure out something better in the future)", "timestamp": "1471986255"}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=807051485232", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_807051485232", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I suspect that a list of community norms won't be useful to the sort of person who doesn't know that you shouldn't do the kinds of things Gleb has been doing. If they can't figure out that their behavior is wrong even when repeatedly told so (as Gleb has been), they're not going to learn anything from a list or description of community norms because if they can't understand the spirit of why they're not supposed to do the things they've been told not to do, they also won't understand the spirit if the written norms.", "timestamp": "1472050365"}, {"author": "Raymond", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=807091689662", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_807091689662", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Part of the point of the list of community norms is so that people feel more comfortable saying \"what you are doing is not something our community does\" earlier, so that frustration doesn't build up for a year and then get dumped on them all at once.
That said, while I do think the \"first norm is the meta 'gain an understanding of our norms in more detail'\" idea is probably still a good idea, I'm less confident in it now in light of your (Michael's) point, but:
a) I think there may be people more on the edge-cases who kinda-get-the-spirit but not quite enough, for whom explicit norms-that-include-meta-norms may be useful.
b) I think it's useful for true common knowledge purposes - everyone has a clear sense that these *are* the norms (or at least that a large number of people believe they are)", "timestamp": "1472060817"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=807093645742", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_807093645742", "service": "fb", "text": "→ More explicitly: even if the norms don't improve behavior, they remove plausible deniability for a repeat violator, making it easier to enforce them.", "timestamp": "1472061924"}, {"author": "Max", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=808683250162", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_808683250162", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Has there been any movement on creating a list of norms? The consensus in this thread seems to be that this is not harmful, and might help. Given that there are other organisations that seem somewhat suboptimal that are using EA to brand themselves, (see https://www.facebook.com/EffectiveAltruism/ or http://www.payitforward.foundation/), I think this is worth doing. I currently don't have time or expertise to lead on this, but I would be happy to make comments if someone else drew up a draft.", "timestamp": "1472661772"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=808773609082", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_808773609082", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Max I have been going around pointing to these exact three examples and making the exact same argument to CEA for a while. My guess is that CEA ought to trademark EA so that the norms have some way to be effected, and so that nobody else can trademark it (again).", "timestamp": "1472695976"}, {"author": "Julia", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=808775340612", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_808775340612", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Oh wow... that Effective Altruism FB page is so terrible.", "timestamp": "1472697304"}, {"author": "Rob", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=808787077092", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_808787077092", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Julia Go review it negatively: https://www.facebook.com/robert.wiblin/posts/738696571035:0", "timestamp": "1472701288"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=808791198832", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_808791198832", "service": "fb", "text": "→ That page is run by Jamie Burnett. He identifies himself as \"managing director of Effective Altruism.\"
And Gleb has encouraged him:
https://www.facebook.com/.../permalink/622229907957861/
https://www.facebook.com/.../a.299442.../319338058400709/...", "timestamp": "1472703019"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=808791253722", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_808791253722", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jamie's 2015 introduction of himself with his plans to create a charity taking the name 'Effective Altruism' without regard to the resounding objections of effective altruists:
https://www.facebook.com/.../permalink/504824719696219/...", "timestamp": "1472703124"}, {"author": "Carl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=808793374472", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_808793374472", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"suggest they LIKE this page...as every like could save a life.\"", "timestamp": "1472704073"}, {"author": "Richard", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=808808319522", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_808808319522", "service": "fb", "text": "→ He's registered a company called 'Effective Altruism': https://www.endole.co.uk/.../effective-altruism-limited", "timestamp": "1472719496"}, {"author": "Richard", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=808808613932", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_808808613932", "service": "fb", "text": "→ He also has, among other registered companies, 'effective altruism london', 'effective giving', 'black lives matter', and 'islam': https://www.endole.co.uk/.../16489669/jamie-casswell-burnett", "timestamp": "1472720268"}, {"author": "Richard", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=808809447262", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_808809447262", "service": "fb", "text": "→ He's also posting the exact same spammy message about EA on his page https://www.facebook.com/Chocolates/. Presumably he has other pages where he's doing the same thing.", "timestamp": "1472721430"}, {"author": "Evan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=806413713332&reply_comment_id=808869656602", "anchor": "fb-806413713332_808869656602", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I reported the page myself for listing a GWWC webpage as its own site, and also for not being a public place, since the page is listed as a business. If people are reviewing it negatively, they may as well report it on similar grounds to me. Other grounds might be spurious, like calling it \"inappropriate content\".", "timestamp": "1472752282"}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/805642967912?comment_id=860368098312", "anchor": "fb-860368098312", "service": "fb", "text": "I have seen sock puppet accounts with fake profile photos and no activity other than liking/sharing Gleb's posts attempting to get into closed Facebook groups that I administer. To hear him get interviews on podcasts talking about how social media can be used to deceive is pretty damn galling.", "timestamp": "1491497405"}]}