. OP can add the link back in if they wish
Someone who works for SingInst choosing to overwrite Eliezer's decision strikes me as unlikely. Not that Eliezer is likely to be aware that Malo works for them, via Luke. (I am fairly sure this is the same Malo.)
Eliezer: Even without considering the extra influence you have over Malo it may have been more practical for you to request via comment and by personal message that the OP remove the link. Very few people would refuse---many may even be more inclined to take the offer to add it back than to refuse to remove it. You could expect the link to remain for only a few hours longer and the likely reception by the community would likely switch from significantly negative to neutral or slightly positive.
This is a case where the degree of power exercised in the two options would be technically almost equivalent but the perception of the intervention would be entirely different---especially if you put some more thought into how to word your comment. Or, heck, just get Luke to do it or ghost write it for you.
Faith, Hope, and Singularity: Entering the Matrix with New York’s Futurist Set
To my knowledge LessWrong hasn't received a great deal of media coverage. So, I was surprised when I came across an article via a Facebook friend which also appeared on the cover of the New York Observer today. However, I was disappointed upon reading it, as I don't think it is an accurate reflection of the community. It certainly doesn't reflect my experience with the LW communities in Toronto and Waterloo.
I thought it would be interesting to see what the broader LessWrong community thought about this article. I think it would make for a good discussion.
Possible conversation topics:
Edit 1: Added some clarification about my view on the article.
Edit 2: Re-added link using “nofollow” attribute.