This post is an ad and very obviously so. Now, maybe LessWrong wants to give hits to 80,000 hours and bump their Google Pagerank, and maybe it doesn’t. But I have a feeling if it were advertising penis pills instead of 80,000 hours, you wouldn’t be complaining that paper-machine provided insufficient evidence. In case you still doubt, I’ll lay out how I noticed it was an Ad.
As of this writing, Benjamin_Todd currently has 2 posts and 6 karma. 1 post is this thread, another is in the 80,000 hours link thread someone else put up. Eg, his only presence on this LessWrong is promoting 80,000 hours.
This thread itself has two links, one to 80,000 hours and another to.… mailto:80,000 hours.
The only informational content of this post relates to 80,000 hours. Not ethics of optimal philanthropy, or anything else of use. Nothing unique to LessWrong.
A person named Benjamin Todd works for 80,000 hours and is responsible, among other things, for their web presence.
Putting the first phrase in google brings up 80,000 hours’ blog and reveals the EXACT ENTIRE POST is actually a copy-paste advertisement.
Maybe you think 80,000 hours is worth having advertising for. That’s fine, maybe it is. But if so, please claim that instead of trying to imply their advertising isn’t advertising.
Apologies—I wasn’t intending to hide the fact that I help to run 80k. If I were, hopefully I would have done a better job than using my real name. Point taken about it being a cross posting on the 80k blog, but I did think the content would be of special interest to LWers, and it hasn’t been cross posted anywhere else.
From what little I know regarding 80,000 hours it actually is worthwhile and one could make a good argument for being worthwhile to advertise or just discuss here. It’s just that it strongly pattern matched to other advertising, like when LG came to a technology forum I frequented so they could tell us about their fantastic products for cheap! I wouldn’t be averse to a different discussion talking about how it helps people achieve optimal philanthropy. Effective altruism is something I (and I’d wager a lot of people on this forum) find interesting.
Edit: Just one quick question, why is 80,000 hours called 80,000 hours? It’s a striking name, but a cursory read of the FAQ didn’t explain.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the fact you cross-posted it. Maybe your reception would have been a little better if you explicitly identified it as a cross-post and explained why you thought LWers would be interested, but from a consequentialist perspective, who cares?
I’m sorry, but I disagree that the post is obviously an ad. Since it is not obviously an ad, I believe you should have provided accompanying evidence that it was when writing your original comment. Yet I’m disappointed to see that the reaction to my own comment, which stated that this evidence was lacking, has been overwhelmingly negative.
As of this writing, Benjamin_Todd currently has 2 posts and 6 karma. 1 post is this thread, another is in the 80,000 hours link thread someone else put up. Eg, his only presence on this LessWrong is promoting 80,000 hours.
This by itself is only weak evidence for your claim that the post was an ad. There are many valuable comments with no ulterior motives made by users with only a handful of contributions (e.g., see the posts by David Chalmers).
This thread itself has two links, one to 80,000 hours and another to.… mailto:80,000 hours.
So what? This is exactly what you would expect in a post requesting answers to a question posed by that organization.
The only informational content of this post relates to 80,000 hours. Not ethics of optimal philanthropy, or anything else of use. Nothing unique to LessWrong.
As noted, the post was specifically requesting answers to the question “How can you best use your time to make a difference?” It wasn’t intended to be an introduction to optimal philanthropy, which has been covered extensively here (where the post appeared) and is also explained in detail on the 80000 Hours website (to which the post linked).
A person named Benjamin Todd works for 80,000 hours and is responsible, among other things, for their web presence.
Yes, and again, this is exactly what you would expect from someone writing a post on behalf of 80,000 Hours announcing that this organization is looking for answers to a certain question.
Putting the first phrase in google brings up 80,000 hours’ blog and reveals the EXACT ENTIRE POST is actually a copy-paste advertisement.
No, it doesn’t reveal that the entire post is a copy-paste advertisement. It reveals that it was a post written elsewhere. Maybe Benjamin Todd’s decision to give it more visibility by reposting it here is objectionable, but it certainly doesn’t show that the post was an ad.
Even if you disagree with my assessment of the lines of evidence above, the sheer fact that this disagreement exists is itself strong evidence that the post wasn’t obviously an ad, unless you dispute my intelligence or honesty. Posts that are obviously ads should not elicit such disagreements among honest, intelligent people.
I believe that what Benthamite was trying to get at was the fact that this post isn’t an ad for 80,000 Hours itself- it provides very little to no information about 80,000 Hours itself, what 80,000 hours does, who is involved in it, etc- the sort of information one would find in an actual ad for the organization.
Instead, it advertises a specific service. However, even here the word “advertise” is sneaking in negative connotations, particularly in this context- advertising has connotations of conniving Madison Avenue executives thinking of sneaky and/or pushy ways to take your money, whereas in this case 80,000 Hours is offering a free service. (Incidentally, advertising is so strongly associated with commercial products that it might be literally false that this is advertising, depending on which definition you use- for example, Google defines advertising as “The activity or profession of producing advertisements for commercial products or services;” this isn’t a commercial product or service, so it’s not advertising by that definition.)
Downvoted for not providing evidence or argument supporting the claim that the topic and content of the post constitutes an “ad” for 80,000 Hours.
Downvoted for either being disengenuous or actually being utterly naive. (Naivety is usually ok, but naivety while directly challenging another gets less leeway.)
Downvoted for not providing evidence or argument supporting the claim that the topic and content of the post constitutes an “ad” for 80,000 Hours.
This post is an ad and very obviously so. Now, maybe LessWrong wants to give hits to 80,000 hours and bump their Google Pagerank, and maybe it doesn’t. But I have a feeling if it were advertising penis pills instead of 80,000 hours, you wouldn’t be complaining that paper-machine provided insufficient evidence. In case you still doubt, I’ll lay out how I noticed it was an Ad.
As of this writing, Benjamin_Todd currently has 2 posts and 6 karma. 1 post is this thread, another is in the 80,000 hours link thread someone else put up. Eg, his only presence on this LessWrong is promoting 80,000 hours.
This thread itself has two links, one to 80,000 hours and another to.… mailto:80,000 hours.
The only informational content of this post relates to 80,000 hours. Not ethics of optimal philanthropy, or anything else of use. Nothing unique to LessWrong.
A person named Benjamin Todd works for 80,000 hours and is responsible, among other things, for their web presence.
Putting the first phrase in google brings up 80,000 hours’ blog and reveals the EXACT ENTIRE POST is actually a copy-paste advertisement.
Maybe you think 80,000 hours is worth having advertising for. That’s fine, maybe it is. But if so, please claim that instead of trying to imply their advertising isn’t advertising.
Apologies—I wasn’t intending to hide the fact that I help to run 80k. If I were, hopefully I would have done a better job than using my real name. Point taken about it being a cross posting on the 80k blog, but I did think the content would be of special interest to LWers, and it hasn’t been cross posted anywhere else.
From what little I know regarding 80,000 hours it actually is worthwhile and one could make a good argument for being worthwhile to advertise or just discuss here. It’s just that it strongly pattern matched to other advertising, like when LG came to a technology forum I frequented so they could tell us about their fantastic products for cheap! I wouldn’t be averse to a different discussion talking about how it helps people achieve optimal philanthropy. Effective altruism is something I (and I’d wager a lot of people on this forum) find interesting.
Edit: Just one quick question, why is 80,000 hours called 80,000 hours? It’s a striking name, but a cursory read of the FAQ didn’t explain.
80,000 hours = total amount of time spent at work over a stereotypical firstworld lifespan.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the fact you cross-posted it. Maybe your reception would have been a little better if you explicitly identified it as a cross-post and explained why you thought LWers would be interested, but from a consequentialist perspective, who cares?
I’m sorry, but I disagree that the post is obviously an ad. Since it is not obviously an ad, I believe you should have provided accompanying evidence that it was when writing your original comment. Yet I’m disappointed to see that the reaction to my own comment, which stated that this evidence was lacking, has been overwhelmingly negative.
This by itself is only weak evidence for your claim that the post was an ad. There are many valuable comments with no ulterior motives made by users with only a handful of contributions (e.g., see the posts by David Chalmers).
So what? This is exactly what you would expect in a post requesting answers to a question posed by that organization.
As noted, the post was specifically requesting answers to the question “How can you best use your time to make a difference?” It wasn’t intended to be an introduction to optimal philanthropy, which has been covered extensively here (where the post appeared) and is also explained in detail on the 80000 Hours website (to which the post linked).
Yes, and again, this is exactly what you would expect from someone writing a post on behalf of 80,000 Hours announcing that this organization is looking for answers to a certain question.
No, it doesn’t reveal that the entire post is a copy-paste advertisement. It reveals that it was a post written elsewhere. Maybe Benjamin Todd’s decision to give it more visibility by reposting it here is objectionable, but it certainly doesn’t show that the post was an ad.
Even if you disagree with my assessment of the lines of evidence above, the sheer fact that this disagreement exists is itself strong evidence that the post wasn’t obviously an ad, unless you dispute my intelligence or honesty. Posts that are obviously ads should not elicit such disagreements among honest, intelligent people.
I believe that what Benthamite was trying to get at was the fact that this post isn’t an ad for 80,000 Hours itself- it provides very little to no information about 80,000 Hours itself, what 80,000 hours does, who is involved in it, etc- the sort of information one would find in an actual ad for the organization.
Instead, it advertises a specific service. However, even here the word “advertise” is sneaking in negative connotations, particularly in this context- advertising has connotations of conniving Madison Avenue executives thinking of sneaky and/or pushy ways to take your money, whereas in this case 80,000 Hours is offering a free service. (Incidentally, advertising is so strongly associated with commercial products that it might be literally false that this is advertising, depending on which definition you use- for example, Google defines advertising as “The activity or profession of producing advertisements for commercial products or services;” this isn’t a commercial product or service, so it’s not advertising by that definition.)
Downvoted for either being disengenuous or actually being utterly naive. (Naivety is usually ok, but naivety while directly challenging another gets less leeway.)