I’ll throw out that I strongly dislike CFAR having a priveldged spot as one of the nonprofits that it’s ok to advertise for on LW. Just because it’s in-tribe doesn’t mean it’s not spammy. I’d much rather have a blanket ban on advertising than allow anyone to prosthelytize for their favorite charity.
Strongly disagree. At the top of the page, you see 3 logos: CFAR, MIRI, and FHI. This is not a ‘hey, we like these organizations’ deal. It’s a ‘These are our babies’ deal.
Do you feel the same way about MIRI and FHI advertising here? (Or CEA or GiveWell?)
CFAR strikes me as the organization that’s uniquely closely-aligned with LW, or at least with LW as it describes itself. (A blog about “refining the art of human rationality” and “improving your reasoning and decision-making skills” where people collaborate and network about personal obstacles and challenging high-impact problems.)
Do you feel the same way about MIRI and FHI advertising here? (Or CEA or GiveWell?)
Yes, to the extent that I don’t think there should be posts on here asking for funds for these orgs from people. It’s perfectly fine to have discussion about their merits in the context of EA or in their own discussions, but again, I do not like that this site is used as a soundboard for soliciting donations.
Clearly, the community consensus is against my opinion, if these vote spreads are any indication.
Just because it’s in-tribe doesn’t mean it’s not spammy.
Taboo “spammy”?
Consider the position that users should upvote material they see as high-value and downvote material they see as low-value, regardless of whether the material is an advertisement. If an ad is good and it’s delivering value to people, seems silly to censor it. (In this case, this post’s high score suggests that on balance many think it’s helping them achieve their values.) If it’s a bad advertisement, downvote it like you would downvote any post you dislike. If it’s actual spam (a non-targeted advertisement from a non-community-member that’s highly unlikely to create significant value and creates perverse incentives for further such ads if not censored), then yeah, censor it.
I’d much rather have a blanket ban on advertising than allow anyone to prosthelytize for their favorite charity.
Hm, personally I see effective altruism as a core LW topic and discussion of which charities to donate to, including persuasive writing, seems very on topic to me.
CFAR seems to have interests which are directly aligned with LW.
I’d much rather have a blanket ban on advertising than allow anyone to prosthelytize for their favorite charity.
Why? If people keep doing so and the better ones float to the top and the non-effective charities get downvoted or ignored, isn’t that still a net-win?
CFAR seems to have interests which are directly aligned with LW.
It it the alignment of interests or is it overlapping management and control?
If I started my own rationality organization with basically the same stated goals as CFAR, would it get the same kind of billing? I pretty much doubt it. Actually, I think a lot of people would resent it as a competitor.
I’ll throw out that I strongly dislike CFAR having a priveldged spot as one of the nonprofits that it’s ok to advertise for on LW. Just because it’s in-tribe doesn’t mean it’s not spammy. I’d much rather have a blanket ban on advertising than allow anyone to prosthelytize for their favorite charity.
Strongly disagree. At the top of the page, you see 3 logos: CFAR, MIRI, and FHI. This is not a ‘hey, we like these organizations’ deal. It’s a ‘These are our babies’ deal.
It’s a (perhaps the only) rationality charity, founded by core members of this website, which is a website dedicated to rationality!
Do you feel the same way about MIRI and FHI advertising here? (Or CEA or GiveWell?)
CFAR strikes me as the organization that’s uniquely closely-aligned with LW, or at least with LW as it describes itself. (A blog about “refining the art of human rationality” and “improving your reasoning and decision-making skills” where people collaborate and network about personal obstacles and challenging high-impact problems.)
Yes, to the extent that I don’t think there should be posts on here asking for funds for these orgs from people. It’s perfectly fine to have discussion about their merits in the context of EA or in their own discussions, but again, I do not like that this site is used as a soundboard for soliciting donations.
Clearly, the community consensus is against my opinion, if these vote spreads are any indication.
Taboo “spammy”?
Consider the position that users should upvote material they see as high-value and downvote material they see as low-value, regardless of whether the material is an advertisement. If an ad is good and it’s delivering value to people, seems silly to censor it. (In this case, this post’s high score suggests that on balance many think it’s helping them achieve their values.) If it’s a bad advertisement, downvote it like you would downvote any post you dislike. If it’s actual spam (a non-targeted advertisement from a non-community-member that’s highly unlikely to create significant value and creates perverse incentives for further such ads if not censored), then yeah, censor it.
Hm, personally I see effective altruism as a core LW topic and discussion of which charities to donate to, including persuasive writing, seems very on topic to me.
CFAR seems to have interests which are directly aligned with LW.
Why? If people keep doing so and the better ones float to the top and the non-effective charities get downvoted or ignored, isn’t that still a net-win?
It it the alignment of interests or is it overlapping management and control?
If I started my own rationality organization with basically the same stated goals as CFAR, would it get the same kind of billing? I pretty much doubt it. Actually, I think a lot of people would resent it as a competitor.