I agree with your analysis. However, the fact that some people are expressing concern that their comments might violate the new censorship policy suggests that others might abstain, or have already abstained, from posting valuable material to this forum, which in turn increases my credence that the censorship policy does more harm than good.
In context, this 2010 post (capture) is interesting: current version is about deaths of tobacco company employees, but it was changed after comments from the original, which was about slowing the computer industry to slow AI progress.
I agree with your analysis. However, the fact that some people are expressing concern that their comments might violate the new censorship policy suggests that others might abstain, or have already abstained, from posting valuable material to this forum, which in turn increases my credence that the censorship policy does more harm than good.
“Avoid compartmentalisation, but don’t talk about your results from doing so too loudly.”
In context, this 2010 post (capture) is interesting: current version is about deaths of tobacco company employees, but it was changed after comments from the original, which was about slowing the computer industry to slow AI progress.
Interesting. As far as I can see, though, the screencap shows the revised version about deaths of tobacco company employees, not the original version.
Yes, the capture is recent.
When in doubt, frame all drug talk as harm reduction.