I have valuable things worth talking about today, so this seems insufficient. And I still have played zero part in the events people are worried about, have taken zero violent acts, have not been in communication with any of the people who this community is concerned about.
And we are talking about the standard for me to be able to post some writings online, about subjects that excite me. Not in person meetings. Not immunity from moderation. My posts would be subject to the same terms of service as every other poster.
To quote my old favorite book, Mother of Learning, ch. 17:
Your insistence on viewing me as an uncompromising threat despite no hostile moves on my part is honestly getting rather tiresome...I came here to talk, not fight.
I think that the default standard should be ‘let me post things, and if I cross any lines, take moderator action’. I don’t plan to cross any lines. I have no need or desire to discuss Ziz, except possibly in a post discussing how she went wrong in greater detail.
And I still have played zero part in the events people are worried about, have taken zero violent acts, have not been in communication with any of the people who this community is concerned about.
If it’s taken for granted that this would be a crux, surely you can see that we (vaguely) shouldn’t be at all confident of that, given the public information, and instead have plenty of information kinda suggesting various flavors of the opposite, right? Like, yeah, if you have in the past been quite closely associated with people who, to public legible appearance, plausibly committed one or more murders and/or caused one or more suicides and/or were closely associated with people who plausibly did that and/or other crazy associated stuff, then people who aren’t you would not be able to very strongly rule out dangerous behavior from you or from people kinda associated with you. I think to be de-ostracized you’d have to do a lot more work about that (I’m not sure exactly what), and in particular would probably require you to conceptually separate how we view and treat you from how you are (since these are legitimately separate things).
The burden of proof should be on the “stop Creatrei from posting” side, to show that allowing Creatrei to post is dangerous, right? The default for this site is to let people post on it, no?
This isn’t super relevant since it’s not like the standards are super high but ever since the enormous onslaught of LLM psychosis posters, the default of people who try to post to LW is to get rejected from posting here.
As always you can check out the content we reject on the /moderation page.
LW is a pretty curated garden. It would not survive the median person posting here.
I mean, morally speaking it’s partly the prerogative of the mods / maintainers of the site, plus some sort of idealized version of the community whose site-maintainer-somewhat-exclusive-niche the maintainers are occupying. But like, in practice the mods do and should act on info that they have without necessarily having to do a bunch of work to explicitize and defend or change their reasoning. There’s plenty of ways for someone to cross the burden of proof over the default, within the mods’s reasoning for the mods to ban them, e.g. posting useless LLM slop as their first post, or being known to the mods as likely to be somehow very toxic.
Have you considered writing a Substack? I feel fairly confident that many people would engage if you published there, and I imagine anything particularly interesting could be linkposted to LessWrong by someone else if the mod team allows that.
I appreciate the idea but I don’t know much about Substack. Why do you think Substack would get a lot of engagement? I’m also open to other ideas of this sort.
Substack is designed for news, not for posts people will be reading in five years. Reading a Substack’s archive is a pain, and most Substacks are poorly indexed by Google. Therefore, if you take the intermittent-posting approach, I recommend posting to both a Substack and a separate stand-alone website (for inspiration, considerAndy Masley ordynomight’s pages). Your Substack allows people who are interested in your thoughts to subscribe and be automatically notified when you have something new to say, while the stand-alone website serves as a canonical reference.
I have valuable things worth talking about today, so this seems insufficient. And I still have played zero part in the events people are worried about, have taken zero violent acts, have not been in communication with any of the people who this community is concerned about.
And we are talking about the standard for me to be able to post some writings online, about subjects that excite me. Not in person meetings. Not immunity from moderation. My posts would be subject to the same terms of service as every other poster.
To quote my old favorite book, Mother of Learning, ch. 17:
I think that the default standard should be ‘let me post things, and if I cross any lines, take moderator action’. I don’t plan to cross any lines. I have no need or desire to discuss Ziz, except possibly in a post discussing how she went wrong in greater detail.
If it’s taken for granted that this would be a crux, surely you can see that we (vaguely) shouldn’t be at all confident of that, given the public information, and instead have plenty of information kinda suggesting various flavors of the opposite, right? Like, yeah, if you have in the past been quite closely associated with people who, to public legible appearance, plausibly committed one or more murders and/or caused one or more suicides and/or were closely associated with people who plausibly did that and/or other crazy associated stuff, then people who aren’t you would not be able to very strongly rule out dangerous behavior from you or from people kinda associated with you. I think to be de-ostracized you’d have to do a lot more work about that (I’m not sure exactly what), and in particular would probably require you to conceptually separate how we view and treat you from how you are (since these are legitimately separate things).
The burden of proof should be on the “stop Creatrei from posting” side, to show that allowing Creatrei to post is dangerous, right? The default for this site is to let people post on it, no?
This isn’t super relevant since it’s not like the standards are super high but ever since the enormous onslaught of LLM psychosis posters, the default of people who try to post to LW is to get rejected from posting here.
As always you can check out the content we reject on the /moderation page.
LW is a pretty curated garden. It would not survive the median person posting here.
I mean, morally speaking it’s partly the prerogative of the mods / maintainers of the site, plus some sort of idealized version of the community whose site-maintainer-somewhat-exclusive-niche the maintainers are occupying. But like, in practice the mods do and should act on info that they have without necessarily having to do a bunch of work to explicitize and defend or change their reasoning. There’s plenty of ways for someone to cross the burden of proof over the default, within the mods’s reasoning for the mods to ban them, e.g. posting useless LLM slop as their first post, or being known to the mods as likely to be somehow very toxic.
Have you considered writing a Substack? I feel fairly confident that many people would engage if you published there, and I imagine anything particularly interesting could be linkposted to LessWrong by someone else if the mod team allows that.
I appreciate the idea but I don’t know much about Substack. Why do you think Substack would get a lot of engagement? I’m also open to other ideas of this sort.
(x)
Largely due to network effects; a lot of bloggers I follow (including many rationalists) are there, and there are some discoverability features.