Thank you for pointing out the difficulty of quantifying existential risks posed blog posts.
The danger from deleting blog posts is much more tangible, and the results of censorship are conspicuous. You have pointed out two such dangers in your comment--(1) LWers will look nuttier and (2) it sets a bad precedent.
(Of course, if there is a way to quantify the marginal benefit of an LW post, then there is also a way to quantify the marginal cost from a bad one—just reverse the sign, and you’ll be right on average.)
(Of course, if there is a way to quantify the marginal benefit of an LW post, then there is also a way to quantify the marginal cost from a bad one—just reverse the sign, and you’ll be right on average.)
That makes sense for evaluating the cost/benefit to me of reading a post. But if I want to evaluate the overall cost/benefit of the post itself, I should also take into account the number of people who read one vs. the other. Given the ostensible purpose of karma and promotion, these ought to be significantly different.
Are you saying: (1) A bad post is less likely to be read because it will not be promoted and it will be downvoted; (2) Because bad posts are less read, they have a smaller cost than good posts’ benefits?
I think I agree with that. I had not considered karma and promotion, which behave like advertisements in their informational value, when making that comment.
But I think that what you’re saying only strengthens the case against moderators’ deleting posts against the poster’s will because it renders the objectionable material less objectionable.
(Of course, if there is a way to quantify the marginal benefit of an LW post, then there is also a way to quantify the marginal cost from a bad one—just reverse the sign, and you’ll be right on average.)
Huh? Why should these be equal? Why should they even be on the same order of magnitude? For example, an advertising spam post that gets deleted does orders of magnitude much less harm than an average good post does good. And a post that contained designs for a UFAI would do orders of magnitude more harm.
You are right to say that it’s possible to have extemely harmful blog posts, and it is also possible to have mostly harmless blog posts. I also agree that the examples you’ve cited are apt.
However, it is also possible to have extremely good blog posts (such as one containing designs for a tool to prevent the rise of UFAI or that changed many powerful people’s minds for the better) and to have barely beneficial ones.
Do we have a reason to think that the big bads are more likely than big goods? Or that a few really big bads are more likely than many moderate goods? I think that’s the kind of reason that would topple what I’ve said.
One of my assumptions here is that whether a post is good or bad does not change the magnitude of its impact. The magnitide of its positivity or negativity might change its the magnitude of its impact, but why should the sign?
I’m sorry if I’ve misunderstood your criticism. If I have, please give me another chance.
Thank you for pointing out the difficulty of quantifying existential risks posed blog posts.
The danger from deleting blog posts is much more tangible, and the results of censorship are conspicuous. You have pointed out two such dangers in your comment--(1) LWers will look nuttier and (2) it sets a bad precedent.
(Of course, if there is a way to quantify the marginal benefit of an LW post, then there is also a way to quantify the marginal cost from a bad one—just reverse the sign, and you’ll be right on average.)
That makes sense for evaluating the cost/benefit to me of reading a post. But if I want to evaluate the overall cost/benefit of the post itself, I should also take into account the number of people who read one vs. the other. Given the ostensible purpose of karma and promotion, these ought to be significantly different.
Are you saying: (1) A bad post is less likely to be read because it will not be promoted and it will be downvoted; (2) Because bad posts are less read, they have a smaller cost than good posts’ benefits?
I think I agree with that. I had not considered karma and promotion, which behave like advertisements in their informational value, when making that comment.
But I think that what you’re saying only strengthens the case against moderators’ deleting posts against the poster’s will because it renders the objectionable material less objectionable.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
And I’m not attempting to weaken or strengthen the case against anything in particular.
Huh? Why should these be equal? Why should they even be on the same order of magnitude? For example, an advertising spam post that gets deleted does orders of magnitude much less harm than an average good post does good. And a post that contained designs for a UFAI would do orders of magnitude more harm.
You are right to say that it’s possible to have extemely harmful blog posts, and it is also possible to have mostly harmless blog posts. I also agree that the examples you’ve cited are apt.
However, it is also possible to have extremely good blog posts (such as one containing designs for a tool to prevent the rise of UFAI or that changed many powerful people’s minds for the better) and to have barely beneficial ones.
Do we have a reason to think that the big bads are more likely than big goods? Or that a few really big bads are more likely than many moderate goods? I think that’s the kind of reason that would topple what I’ve said.
One of my assumptions here is that whether a post is good or bad does not change the magnitude of its impact. The magnitide of its positivity or negativity might change its the magnitude of its impact, but why should the sign?
I’m sorry if I’ve misunderstood your criticism. If I have, please give me another chance.