This is a linkpost for https://www.facebook.com/513596087/posts/10154023357346088/?pnref=story
Good for you that you're doing this.
But... as has been said before... not everyone (and I mean "only 0-15%") seems to like (or even care!) about your posts.
I don't mean to say that you should stop posting here all together (for that we have bans, if need be), but... maybe you should stop posting about InIn here? We're not your target audience. Some people here (I myself included) disagree with your methods (like those endorsements by other organizations that turn out to be fake).
If you observe your recent interactions with LessWrong, would you say they are positive interactions? Maybe so, I don't know how you view yourself. But all I'm seeing is disinterested folk. People who do not care about you. My view is perhaps distorted, but what doesn't help are the shills - people who post on your posts with generic but praise giving commentary, which you accept with thanks. But then it turns out they're part of your organization, or that you pay them. And not in a "this guy lives in my street, I paid him to paint my windowframes" - more of a "I pay this guy to promote my ideas". That sort of thing adds a generic excuse for any positive reactions you may get - "That person might only be saying that because they're a shill".
Keeping this reputation in mind, you think that it is a good idea to go ahead and ask for money from those disinterested folk? Why?
Here's my take on the idea. This is probably wrong because I am not you, but I'm going to say it anyway in the hope some parts of it match and you realize that if different people come to a different viewpoint with the same information then someone is either missing evidence or has made a mistake.
You're partially stuck in a bubble that is your own organization. You saw the elections and the media surrounding it and experienced a disconnect. You feel your goal is to help society in general, and you think that building a platform and spreading the word will help. After some reflection you've come to realize that this whole platform idea doesn't work, and that if you'll want to convince others, you'll probably have to go and convince them in person. But... that's going to take a lot of time, and thus you'll need money. So you'll make a single post outlining your thoughts and just link everywhere where it's a relevant thing.
There is nothing wrong with this plan of action at first sight. Take the last part - "make a single post, then link it everywhere in the hope of support". Great idea! Except if you do this repeatedly, without giving something back, whilst taking actions that cost reputation... you start to elicit responses like this. Responses that say "please stop".
Please stop asking for support here.
Please stop posting about InIn here.
You're probably a somewhat clever fellow, so you can probably contribute to a discussion just fine. So I don't think it would help if people were to block you (if that's even possible? ... It's probably possible, with a userscript if need be). But the posting of crap should stop.
Post some interesting articles. That voting thing was interesting, perhaps the calculations were off (?) but it sparked an interesting discussion. "I was on a radio show"/"I was on tv"/"InIn has ..." is not interesting.
This is not a kind post, but I believe it to be true and necessary. I don't know whether I crossed any social boundaries, but this is how I feel.
Gleb has been getting responses like this from the very beginning; thousands upon thousands of words have been spilled on the subject. What makes you think your latest 600 are going to change his mind?
I am not intending to be snarky, I am genuinely curious, especially considering the amount of time and effort that has gone into criticism of Gleb's approach and the relatively limited effectiveness of the combined efforts of so many people in producing behavior change. While I am not a fan of Gleb's style or approach, the level of effort against him, and success thereof, are undermining my confidence in many of his most vocal critics to achieve their more important stated goals.
Gleb has been getting responses like this from the very beginning; thousands upon thousands of words have been spilled on the subject. What makes you think your latest 600 are going to change his mind?
Because it's new to me ...? ... hmmm no, not "new"...
Because it's recent. Gleb has been posting more crap than usual lately (or the rest of the content has gotten less ... the content to "Gleb crap" ratio has been going down), and I wanted to counter that.
As for effectiveness, I'll admit I didn't try to be very persuasive (in that I didn't think about "what would make him think that he's doing something wrong"). I seem to have gone for a deconstructive approach - perhaps trying to understand why he does as he does because perhaps I'm missing something.
... and I kinda hope to start a discourse with him.
Though it was more out of emotions than logical thought.
Summarized
You're making a lot of assumptions here about what other people think.
I like Gleb's content, and think that people who criticize his methods have a point, but also at times veer away from consequentialism into virtue ethics.
I agree that I am making a lot of assumptions about what other people think, but I am basing these off the voting that the community seems to apply to Gleb's posts, and the comments that he seems to receive.
I hear you about the interesting articles.
This piece was not aimed at folks who want interesting articles, but to the smaller proportion of folks who are concerned about the election outcome and want to do something to help out.
I'm very comfortable with people downvoting my posts, if they reach the minority of folks receptive to them.