Surely you could phrase things the other way round?

"We're pretty sure this will be made illegal in 10 years time, as the law catches up to our technology advances. However, it's not illegal now, so feel free to buy it from us and use it!"

I'd be really uncomfortable with a billionaire tech CEO openly saying that.

Here's my problem with neglectedness:

• It absolutely makes sense when considering where to donate (or volunteer i.e. donate time). If there's less attention on an area, there's likely to be easily identifiable funding gaps.
• It doesn't make as much sense when considering where to work, because if something is neglected and has funding gaps you're going to have to spend a bunch of time trying to get people to give you a salary. Clearly the ad-hoc metric should be roughly opposite here: you want to work in a really well funded field (where funding is wasted due to talent inefficiency) and then make really good use of all that funding.

Have you looked into Power for Democracies? https://powerfordemocracies.org - EA does in fact do anti-fascist interventions evaluation

Not "good practice" as in policy but "a good practice", as I was replying to a comment saying that it was a bad thing that there had been no official CEA response in 24 hours on a platform that CEA owns.

I do not think that quick responses will help this situation. The time for a quick response meaningfully fixing things is long past. And I would think that any attempt to respond too quickly would be CEA attempting to control the narrative developing here in a way that is unfair to Frances and to the EA community. The purpose of this forum is to allow the EA community to meet and discuss things of importance to EA (which this is), and CEA hosts this forum to serve the EA community - not to control its brand image.

I also explained my disagree vote in order to imply that I was not disagreeing with the rest of the post. I do agree that allowing a misogynistic culture to develop to the degree an incident like this could happen is indicative of a failure of leadership capacity in EA's leadership organisation. And this raises questions about if some of the leaders involved here really are the kind of people best able to lead the EA movement.

I have disagree voted specifically because I believe waiting at least 24hr before responding is a good practice, as it allows a global audience who check the Forum once per day to see Frances' post before a CEA response.

https://80000hours.org/2015/08/what-are-the-10-most-harmful-jobs/

Number 6: Weapons research

Weapons researchers develop new ways of waging war. While in some cases new weapons will be more targeted and less harmful than the old ones, in general we expect this work to be very bad for the world. Over the medium term new weapons technologies becomes widely disseminated and so both sides end up being able to use them. Usually this makes any remaining wars more destructive.

Furthermore, weapons researchers are among the most likely to accidentally design new technologies that could be used to accidentally destroy humanity, such as nuclear or biological weapons in the past. We just don’t know what new opportunities for mass destruction are available, and we are probably better off not knowing.

My thoughts here:

• EA, as a philosophy, should only ever be at most half* of one's philosophical life. This is because of tendencies towards excessive sacrifices, maximisation, catastrophic doom spiralling, etc. that will take you over and ruin you if EA-the-philosophy is the only thing you internalise as a life philosophy.
• The other half that works for people seems to be different across people, in a way that's related to their cultural context and personality traits. Thus, it's impossible for EA-the-movement to expand its philosophy to encompass whatever the other half "should" be, because there are a bunch of different potential other halves that are somewhat incompatible with each other.
• EA-the-community-spaces are also not set up as membership organisations, but are funded in ways that are accountable to their external donors (who want to see impact). Therefore they're probably bad places to just hang out for your community social time and you need other spaces too.

*half in the sense that it should be one of at least two life philosophies you genuinely have.

That is a great deontological point for why you might wish to avoid paying your local EA community-builder out of pledge money. (I could counter that I think it is deontologically quite inappropriate that EA's growth strategy currently expects its local community-builders to do a bunch of free work).

And I understand your hesitancy about counterfactuality. I'm not sure I believe organisations with very high multipliers that brand themselves as fundraising from EAs, because of counterfactuality issues (I think EAs are precisely the kinds of people who might have otherwise given effectively anyway).

A professional fundraising organisation such as One for the World will likely never meet you, and is a slightly safer bet on the deontology part. And because they fundraise from outside of the EA community, there's not so much of a counterfactuality problem.

Yep, Giving What We Can is a great place to donate money, and you can do it really easily from GWWC's website!

I have written this post to reach someone who wants to know, with great certainty, that if they put $1k somewhere that at least $1k extra goes to GiveWell's Top Charities (very specifically those). The point is to let people who are of the persuasion to donate their money to GiveWell's Top Charities (lots of those people around) know that such organisations exist and have plenty of funding and scaling gaps.

I haven't attempted a comparative analysis of multipliers, other than convincing myself that there's a lot of things currently not funded that are definitely above 3x, even if you apply various downward adjustments. I'd be interested in seeing a comparative analysis, though I imagine it might be tricky to equalise the methodologies.

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/dm2uawLLeLbY8WNKM/updates-on-the-effective-giving-ecosystem-mcf-2025-memo found this summary which has more!