Watch team backup: I think we should be incredibly careful about saying things like, "it is probably okay to work in an industry that is slightly bad for the world if you do lots of good by donating". I'm sure you mean something reasonable when you say this, similar to what's expressed here, but I still wanted to flag it.

Perhaps you could start a group that does something slightly different? Or speak with your national organisation (if you have one) and collaborate with them in starting a national cause or profession-based group? Or a company group? 

For example, in the Netherlands, in addition to our city/student groups, we have a policy and politics group, a new group at ASML, and a new animal welfare group. And then we also have the Tien Procent Club. They're inspired by Giving What We Can and run events focused on effective giving. They started in Amsterdam but they've now got chapters in several other cities.

You mentioned you're applying to CE - I'd love it if we had a sort of CE group in NL, so that could be an option for you. I'm happy to jump on a call if you'd like to talk about this further :) 

What do you make of this post? I've been trying to understand the downvotes. I find it valuable in the same way that I would have found it valuable if a friend had sent me it in a DM without context, or if someone had quote tweeted it with a line like 'Prominent YouTuber shares her take on FHI closing down'. 

I find posts like this useful because it's valuable to see what external critics are saying about EA. This helps me either a) learn from their critiques or b) rebut their critiques. Even if they are bad critiques and/or I don't think it's worth my time rebutting them, I think I should be aware of them because it's valuable to understand how others perceive the movement I am connected to. I think this is the same for other Forum users. This being the case, according to the Forum's guidance on voting, I think I should upvote them. As Lizka says here, a summary is appreciated but isn't necessary. A requirement to include a summary or an explanation also imposes a (small) cost on the poster, thus reducing the probability they post. But I think you feel differently? 

I think the bar for linkposts is supposed to the same as it is for original posts, no? At least, that’s how I’ve interpreted guidance published by mods on the subject.

If people are downvoting because they’re assuming a linkpost without a summary is low value then that’s a pity. Summaries are encouraged but they aren’t mandatory.

Or maybe down-voters are following Forum guidance perfectly - they’re downvoting because they don’t think it’s valuable for other Forum users to see prominent people publishing critiques. I disagree with this view, so it would be nice to see a defence of it.

Perhaps it would be valuable to have a ‘quick links’ section where this sort of thing could be shared without taking room from the front page? Or the guidance should advise people like Deborah to post this sort of thing in the quick takes section?

Yeah, the old title was enough for me because I'd heard of Sabine, but I think your advice to have a title that provides more context is good, e.g., "Prominent YouTuber with millions of subscribers posts extensive critique of FHI". I agree it's reasonable to expect someone who is posting a link to say something about its relevance. 

However, I don't think it's reasonable to downvote without first checking the relevancy if that checking can be done in seconds (as was the case here). 

I've noticed that Deborah often linkposts prominent people being critical of EA, and these posts are often downvoted. Why is this? 

On this specific post, I agree with Jason that an explanation of the relevancy would be useful (although personally, the title alone was enough), but I don't think this imperfection justifies the downvotes. 

Personally, I find them useful because it's valuable to see what external critics are saying about EA. This helps me either a) learn from their critiques or b) rebut their critiques. Even if they are bad critiques and I don't think it's worth my time rebutting them, I think I should be aware of them because it's valuable to understand how others perceive the movement I am connected to. I think this is the same for other Forum users. 

This being the case, according to the Forum's guidance on voting, I think I should upvote them. But, judging by the downvotes, others see it differently. If you are one of these other people could you explain yourself? Thanks!   

I'm surprised by the scepticism re 80k. The OP EA/LT survey from 2020 seems to suggest one can be quite confident of the positive impact 80k had on the small (but important) population surveyed. As the authors noted in their summary:

Among the organizations, pieces of content, and meetup groups/discussion platforms we explicitly asked about, the ones that seemed to have been most impactful on our respondents robustly, across multiple metrics, were 80,000 Hours, CEA, local and university EA groups, FHI, Nick Bostrom’s works, Eliezer Yudkowsky’s works, and Peter Singer’s works.

My recommended readings/resources for community builders/organisers

• CEA's groups resource centre, naturally 
• This handbook on community organising 
• High Output Management by Andrew Groves
• How to Launch a High-Impact Nonprofit
• LifeLabs's coaching questions (great for 1-1s with organisers you're supporting/career coachees)
• The 2-Hour Cocktail Party
• Centola's work on social change, e.g., the book Change: How to Make Big Things Happen
• Han's work on organising, e.g., How Organisations Develop Activists (I wrote up some notes here)
• This 80k article on community coordination
• @Michael Noetel's forum post - 'We all teach: here's how to do it better' 
• Theory of change in ten steps
• Rumelt's Good Strategy Bad Strategy
• IDinsight's Impact Measurement Guide