I don’t fully buy that this is okay just because the free event space was a donation. Of course, you’re not obligated to fund people you disagree with. But how do you think people will behave if they learn that disagreeing with community orthodoxy will immediately lead to loss of financial support? That would have an obvious chilling effect.
I think this is worse given that Scott was pushing back on precisely this kind of “purity spiral” dynamic, where certain opinions seem to be socially enforced for groupthink reasons (not necessarily endorsing this claim FWIW) - and then Habryka started talking about pulling resources in response to disagreement here. (Being perhaps a little uncharitable here, but that’s how it can be perceived.)
Of course Habryka is well within his legal rights to withhold financial support here, I empathize with why he would want to, and I don’t think this is so clear cut morally. But it certainly does make me feel uncomfortable.
I don’t fully buy that this is okay just because the free event space was a donation. Of course, you’re not obligated to fund people you disagree with. But how do you think people will behave if they learn that disagreeing with community orthodoxy will immediately lead to loss of financial support? That would have an obvious chilling effect.
I think this is worse given that Scott was pushing back on precisely this kind of “purity spiral” dynamic, where certain opinions seem to be socially enforced for groupthink reasons (not necessarily endorsing this claim FWIW) - and then Habryka started talking about pulling resources in response to disagreement here. (Being perhaps a little uncharitable here, but that’s how it can be perceived.)
Of course Habryka is well within his legal rights to withhold financial support here, I empathize with why he would want to, and I don’t think this is so clear cut morally. But it certainly does make me feel uncomfortable.