= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
it doesn't really matter if people think it's an issue as long as yvain does.
Perhaps. Do note that it is listed in the Recent On Rationality Blogs sidebar, so its not really that secret at all. Nevertheless, I have redacted the relevant parts, in order to avoid unseemly bickering, as this discussion has little to no relevance to my main thesis.
https://web.archive.org/ still has it.
As I said to ChristianKl, the wayback machine has only a very incomplete archive of it.
If I understand correctly, one of the posts in the creepiness is male weakness / conceptual superweapons sequence was linked to recently by Marginal Revolution. The comments weren't kind, and this was the immediate cause of Yvain locking down his blog, even if he had planned to do so for a while.
I wouldn't want any gender discussion linked to under my Real Name either. As much as I'm disappointed that I can't read his posts, I can't say that I would have reacted any differently.
Yes, I know why he locked it. It is a real issue, I agree. I still feel that it shouldn't impact us from reading those posts, as he did make some quite good points about conceptual superweapons. That's why I proposed a karma threshold: Established LWers should be able to access it, without the problems that emerge from it being open to the entire internet.
I view this as a crime against humanity, almost
This comment makes you seem crazy. You should have just said "Yvain is awesome, it's a shame he locked up his old stuff, let's lobby him to open it back up".
OK, fine. I guess I got carried away in the heat of the moment. I do suppose I got a bit to worked up over this. I will go back and edit it state this a bit more calmly.
That said, if people really think that it is an issue
This response strikes me as a bit odd.
It reminds me of calling up an ISP and reporting a service outage, only to be told, "We don't have any reports of an outage in that service area."
Or bringing up a newly-arisen relationship problem with a partner, only to be told, "Why didn't you tell me!?"
Or telling someone their floral perfume is making your face swell up, only to be told, "I've never heard of anyone being allergic to perfume!"
For some reason, it seems that people exclude the conversation they are now having from the set of all conversations. It seems like a failure to apply the self-sampling assumption or something. Maybe it's a short-term/long-term memory thing.
In case it's not clear: Yes, I (who am a person) do really think that your comment above disrespects the apparent wishes of the person whose writing you're talking about.
No, I think it's more of an issue of refusing to generalize from a single data point. It is entirely correct to say "This conversation is a starting piece of evidence for your position, but I need to wait to gather more evidence."
You are a person, but not all people. Not even two people. So I do not wish to act on your say so alone. That said, I will repeat my earlier statement: If people [people in general, that is] really think that it is an issue I will redact the name of his old blog.
Yvain has explicitly asked people not to link to his new blog publicly, including on LessWrong. Please remove the link from your post.
ETA: Apparently he has not actually explicitly requested this, although I do believe that he is trying to maintain some degree of anonymity, which associating his old and new blogs publicly makes somewhat more difficult.
[Edit: My points still stand, but this isn't an issue worth fighting over. I've gone back and edited my post.]
Look for the bar at the right side of the page. Look down to the part where it says "Recent on Rationality Blogs". The current top link there is the same link as what I gave. I therefore disbelieve that he asked that he asked not to link to it from Less Wrong, or that he still supports such a request if he did make it, because Less Wrong itself links to it in the sidebar! If it is true that we shouldn't link to his new blog, shouldn't the site itself be abiding by that as well? I trust the administrators of Less Wrong to not go against Yvain on that.
It was my impression that he didn't really want these blogs or identities associated so strongly. Respecting his wishes for increased privacy-by-obscurity would suggest not discussing these blogs by name openly.
[Edit: My points still stand, but this isn't an issue worth fighting over. I've gone back and edited my post.]
Good point, although I think that by this point that ship has already sailed. That said, if people really think that it is an issue I will redact the name of his old blog. Note, however, that Yvain's old Less Wrong posts are heavily sprinkled with links to things on his blog, so its not like they are remotely unconnected.
Oh. Does that mean I can no longer send people the link to "Last Temptation of Christ"? Yvain, please repost that one!
This is my point. This a hundred or a thousand times over. That story, and the story of Emily and Control, and all his posts about conceptual superweapons, and the non-central fallacy, and so on and so on for a hundred or a thousand nuggets of awesomeness. That is why I make my plea.
If he wants to delete his old blog, it's up to him, he isn't accountable to anybody. Don't punish people for posting quality material on the internet.
What solutions are there? There are a few. My favorite so far is for Scott to restrict access by LW karma, which would allow him to maintain his privacy against the web, while still not denying those brilliant, humorous, and insightful posts to those who would truly appreciate them.
Are you willing to fork out the money to hire a programmer to implement something like that? It's not trivial at all.
Also, Yvain's policy of reposting worthwhile stuff to his new blog seems like a very sensible solution to what you're complaining about.
I actually agree with you: He is under no obligations whatsoever. None. But I still am allowed to plead my case to him, for him to decide as he wills, and to spread the issue and discuss it so that the best possible solution can be reached.
As to programming something like that: I am willing to personally implement something like that if asked, although I was more thinking of the manual method of those who want access PMing Yvain or his designated representative and asking for access. Again, I am willing to have the burden of such a task placed on my own shoulders, should Yvain agree. I honestly am trying to find a solution, and am willing to invest a fair amount of personal effort in this.
About the reposting: Yes, I agree. However, there was a lot of stuff on the old blog. Literally thousands of posts, and it would be impractical to repost them one by one. A possible alternative though is for Yvain to repost them en masse, simply redacting the few that he doesn't want around. That is actually a workable solution, if Yvain agrees, all we need is for this to come to his attention. (And again, if that takes grunt work and effort, I am willing to invest it.)
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Maybe someone can volunteer to host/repost the content of the blog while keeping his name away from the content?
Hey, that's far from a bad idea. This was the kind of idea I was looking for when I asked for people to post additional ideas.
I offer myself as a willing volunteer to do this, if Yvain is interested.