If you're interested, we can also move forward as I did over here
It's not "moving forward", it's moving to a separate question. That question might be worth considering, but isn't generally related to the original one.
simply assuming EY is right,
Why would the assumption that EY was right be necessary to consider that question?
and then seeing if banning the post was net positive
I agree that it was net negative, specifically because the idea is still circulating, probably with more attention drawn to it than would happen otherwise. Which is why I started commenting on my hypothesis about the reasons for EY's actions, in an attempt to alleviate the damage, after I myself figured it out. But that it was in fact net negative doesn't directly argue that given the information at hand when the decision was made, it had net negative expectation, and so that the decision was incorrect (which is why it's a separate question, not a step forward on the original one).
It's not "moving forward", it's moving to a separate question.
I like the precision of your thought.
All this time I thought we were discussing if blocking future censorship by EY was a rational thing to do -- but it's not what we were discussing at all.
You really are in it for the details -- if we could find a way of estimating around hard problems to solve the above question, that's only vaguely interesting to you -- you want to know the answers to these questions.
At least that's what I'm hearing.
It sounds like the above was your way of saying...
Ideally, I'd like to save the world. One way to do that involves contributing academic research, which raises the question of what's the most effective way of doing that.
The traditional wisdom says if you want to do research, you should get a job in a university. But for the most part the system seems to be set up so that you first spend a long time working for someone else and research their ideas, after which you can lead your own group, but then most of your time will be spent on applying for grants and other administrative trivia rather than actually researching the interesting stuff. Also, in Finland at least, all professors need to also spend time doing teaching, so that's another time sink.
I suspect I would have more time to actually dedicate on research, and I could get doing it quicker, if I took a part-time job and did the research in my spare time. E.g. the recommended rates for a freelance journalist in Finland would allow me to spend a week each month doing work and three weeks doing research, of course assuming that I can pull off the freelance journalism part.
What (dis)advantages does this have compared to the traditional model?
Some advantages:
Some disadvantages:
EDIT: Note that while I certainly do appreciate comments specific to my situation, I posted this over at LW and not Discussion because I was hoping the discussion would also be useful for others who might be considering an academic path. So feel free to also provide commentary that's US-specific, say.