Connor/Gabriel—if you are connected with Control AI, I think it’s important to make this clear, for a few reasons. First, if you’re trying to drive policy change, people should know who you are, at minimum so they can engage with you. Second, I think this is particularly true if the policy campaign involves attacks on people who disagree with you. And third, because I think it’s useful context for understanding this post.
This seems like a general-purpose case against anonymous political speech that contains criticism (“attacks”) of the opposition. But put like that, it seems like there are lots of reasons people might want to speak anonymously (e.g. to shield themselves from unfair blowback). And your given reasons don’t seem super persuasive—you can engage with people who say they agree with the message (or do broad-ranged speech of your own), reason 2 isn’t actually a reason, and the post was plenty understandable to me without the context.
This seems like a general-purpose case against anonymous political speech that contains criticism (“attacks”) of the opposition. But put like that, it seems like there are lots of reasons people might want to speak anonymously (e.g. to shield themselves from unfair blowback). And your given reasons don’t seem super persuasive—you can engage with people who say they agree with the message (or do broad-ranged speech of your own), reason 2 isn’t actually a reason, and the post was plenty understandable to me without the context.