I’ve heard that firemen respond to everything not because they actually have to, but because it keeps the drill sharp, so to speak. The same idea may apply to mod action… (in other words, MOAR “POINTLESS” CENSORSHIP)
More seriously, does this policy apply to things like gwern’s hypothetical bombing of intel?
Individuals are somewhat likely to become violent because of Internet sophistry. If big oils (or likely future big oils) become violent because of Internet sophistry, we have bigger problems.
I suppose the next question is whether it would apply to things like comments in response to gwern’s hypothetical bombing of intel arguing that his conclusion is incorrect.
Given the stated principles governing the new censorship policy, I think the answer would be “yes, of course.”
I didn’t thoroughly read the new version on his site, so there’s a chance that there is now a link to an article that will still be confused for a pro-terrorism piece (that’s the problem the previous version had) or sounds like it’s advocating the idea of governments attacking chip fabs.
I posted a draft here. A while after the initial discussion, because I had expanded it massively, I deleted the draft version so readers of that post had no choice but to go to the updated master copy. (I also did this for all similar posts like my Melatonin post, for similar reasons.)
Well then.
I’ve heard that firemen respond to everything not because they actually have to, but because it keeps the drill sharp, so to speak. The same idea may apply to mod action… (in other words, MOAR “POINTLESS” CENSORSHIP)
More seriously, does this policy apply to things like gwern’s hypothetical bombing of intel?
gwern specifically argued that small scale terrorism would be ineffective.
Implying that whether his post should be censored hinges on the conclusion reached and not just the topic?
discussion of violence by state actors is quite a bit different than discussion of individual violence.
Sure, but why is that a difference that makes a difference?
Individuals are somewhat likely to become violent because of Internet sophistry. If big oils (or likely future big oils) become violent because of Internet sophistry, we have bigger problems.
I suppose the next question is whether it would apply to things like comments in response to gwern’s hypothetical bombing of intel arguing that his conclusion is incorrect.
Given the stated principles governing the new censorship policy, I think the answer would be “yes, of course.”
Let’s not delete posts for disagreeing on uncomfortable empirical questions.
I don’t think the policy EY is proposing involves banning people, just deleting the stuff we write that violates policy.
fixed, thanks
It looks as though that was on gwern.net—outside the zone.
it was in discussion too.
If you’re talking about his Slowing Moore’s Law: Why You Might Want To and How You Would Do It it’s not there anymore.
I didn’t thoroughly read the new version on his site, so there’s a chance that there is now a link to an article that will still be confused for a pro-terrorism piece (that’s the problem the previous version had) or sounds like it’s advocating the idea of governments attacking chip fabs.
I posted a draft here. A while after the initial discussion, because I had expanded it massively, I deleted the draft version so readers of that post had no choice but to go to the updated master copy. (I also did this for all similar posts like my Melatonin post, for similar reasons.)
As worded, yes. However, I suspect it wouldn’t have been enforced in that case.