The norm I’ve been pushing of sharing things with EA organizations ahead of time is only intended for cases where you have a neutral or better relationship with the organization, and not situations like this one where there are allegations of mistreatment, or you don’t trust them to behave cooperatively.
A threat to sue if changes are not made to the text of the post is not cooperative.
You say “if published as is”, not “if published now”. Is what you’re saying in the comment that, if Ben had waited a week and then published the same post, unedited, you would not want to sue? That is not what is conveyed in the email.
Yes, that is what I intended to communicate here, and I was worried people might think I was trying to suppress the article so I bolded this request to ensure people didn’t misunderstand:
For what it’s worth, I also interpreted the “if published as is” as “if you do not edit the post to no longer be libelous” and not “if you do not give us a week to prepare a contemporaneous rebuttal”.
I think if you wanted to reliably communicate that you were not asking for changes to the text of the post, you would have needed to be explicit about that?
Please don’t post screenshots of comments that include screenshots of comments. It is harder to read and to search and to reply. You can just quote the text, like habryka did above.
In case it wasn’t clear, we didn’t say ‘don’t publish’, we said ‘don’t publish until we’ve had a week to gather and share the evidence we have’:
I’m trying to support two complementary points:
The norm I’ve been pushing of sharing things with EA organizations ahead of time is only intended for cases where you have a neutral or better relationship with the organization, and not situations like this one where there are allegations of mistreatment, or you don’t trust them to behave cooperatively.
A threat to sue if changes are not made to the text of the post is not cooperative.
You say “if published as is”, not “if published now”. Is what you’re saying in the comment that, if Ben had waited a week and then published the same post, unedited, you would not want to sue? That is not what is conveyed in the email.
Yes, that is what I intended to communicate here, and I was worried people might think I was trying to suppress the article so I bolded this request to ensure people didn’t misunderstand:
For what it’s worth, I also interpreted the “if published as is” as “if you do not edit the post to no longer be libelous” and not “if you do not give us a week to prepare a contemporaneous rebuttal”.
I think if you wanted to reliably communicate that you were not asking for changes to the text of the post, you would have needed to be explicit about that?
Please don’t post screenshots of comments that include screenshots of comments. It is harder to read and to search and to reply. You can just quote the text, like habryka did above.
Consider that making it harder to search for the text may be the whole point of posting a screenshot.