Was following the principle of not linking to things I consider negative.
What’s the thinking behind this? (Would putting the link in parentheses or a footnote work for your purposes? I’m just thinking of the amount of time being wasted by your readers trying to find out what the institute is about.)
Their principle is to bring AI ‘under democratic control’ and then use it as a tool to force AI to enforce their political agenda
Ok, thanks. I guess one of their webpages does mention “through democratic consultation” but that didn’t jump out as very salient to me until now.
In the internet age, attention is like oxygen or life. That’s especially true for a charity, but everyone lives on clicks and views, and a common strategy is to trick people into going ‘hey check out this awful thing.’
If they hadn’t been funded, or their name had been obscured by the veto, I wouldn’t have included their name at all (as I didn’t for several others that I mention briefly, but weren’t funded.)
In that case, perhaps copy/paste a longer description of the organization in a footnote, so the reader can figure out what the organization is trying to do, without having to look them up?
This makes some sense. On the other hand, not naming such organizations means you can’t share your skepticism about specific organizations with the rest of us, who might benefit from hearing it.
What’s the thinking behind this? (Would putting the link in parentheses or a footnote work for your purposes? I’m just thinking of the amount of time being wasted by your readers trying to find out what the institute is about.)
Ok, thanks. I guess one of their webpages does mention “through democratic consultation” but that didn’t jump out as very salient to me until now.
In the internet age, attention is like oxygen or life. That’s especially true for a charity, but everyone lives on clicks and views, and a common strategy is to trick people into going ‘hey check out this awful thing.’
If they hadn’t been funded, or their name had been obscured by the veto, I wouldn’t have included their name at all (as I didn’t for several others that I mention briefly, but weren’t funded.)
In that case, perhaps copy/paste a longer description of the organization in a footnote, so the reader can figure out what the organization is trying to do, without having to look them up?
This makes some sense. On the other hand, not naming such organizations means you can’t share your skepticism about specific organizations with the rest of us, who might benefit from hearing it.