IDK where habryka is coming from, but to me the post is good, and the title is fine but gives a twinge from the words “We” and “must” and those words together. (Also the phrase “is unacceptable” also is implicitly speaking from a social-collective-objective perspective, if you know what I mean. Which is fine, but it contributes to the twinge.) Things that would, to me, decrease the twinge:
EAs should be....
EA must unambiguously not accept fraud...
That’s a low-character-count way to be a bit more specific about who We is, to whom something Is Unacceptable. It’s maybe not what you really mean, maybe you really mean something more complicated like “people who want to ambitiously do good in the world” or something, and you don’t have a low-character way to say that, and “We” is aspirationally pointing at that.
In the post you clarify
we—as people who unknowingly benefitted from it and whose work for the world was potentially used to whitewash it
and say
Right now, I think the best course of action is for us—and I mean all of us, anyone who has any sort of a public platform—to make clear that we don’t support fraud done in the service of effective altruism.
Which is reasonable. The title though, by touching on the We, seems to me to “make it” a “decision that is the group’s decision”.
IDK where habryka is coming from, but to me the post is good, and the title is fine but gives a twinge from the words “We” and “must” and those words together. (Also the phrase “is unacceptable” also is implicitly speaking from a social-collective-objective perspective, if you know what I mean. Which is fine, but it contributes to the twinge.) Things that would, to me, decrease the twinge:
EAs should be....
EA must unambiguously not accept fraud...
That’s a low-character-count way to be a bit more specific about who We is, to whom something Is Unacceptable. It’s maybe not what you really mean, maybe you really mean something more complicated like “people who want to ambitiously do good in the world” or something, and you don’t have a low-character way to say that, and “We” is aspirationally pointing at that.
In the post you clarify
and say
Which is reasonable. The title though, by touching on the We, seems to me to “make it” a “decision that is the group’s decision”.