Great to see TMS get a mention. TMS is what has worked for my wife - with remission being a reliable ~9 months later each time.
The main problem was location combined with the number of treatments. It effectively required an inpatient stay down in Melbourne because it hadn't been made available locally.
rsaarelm gave an excellent explanation early on about how the issue seems to be an incompatibility between forum mechanics and blog mechanics, rather than an issue with moderation itself. It would be unfortunate if the point was overlooked because it misunderstood as "moderation is bad".
It is fair to say that a blog with a policy "I'll moderate however I like, if you don't like it leave" works fine. It's the default and implicit.
When it comes to a forum system with as many potential posters as there are commenters then "If you don't like it leave" is the implicit ultimatum from every single user to every other. But if the feed system that governs content exposure doesn't allow leaving individual posters, then the only thing that could be left is the entire forum.
This is why all other significant sites with a many producers -> many consumers model all have unsubscribe, mute and/or block features. It helps ensure a few weeds in the Well-Kept Garden don't drive away all the plants with low toxin tolerance.
It sounds like -- particularly from testimony from habryka and Eliezer -- moving to a more meta-blog like system is/was critical to lesswrong being viable. Which means leaning in to that structure and fully implementing the requisite features seems like an easy way to improve the experience of everyone.
I like the details of specific ways people may (implicitly or explicitly) make this mistake regarding meta-ethics in a way that matters.
It almost seems like the post was "Don't roll your own" and this added "meta-ethics".
Can I, looking at that UI, see how to get others "private spaces" out of my brain? The core mechanic of reading the site appears to be non-consensual exposure to others private (sometimes) nonsense.
I stopped by to lesswrong for the first time in a decade and (due to the familiar author) this was the first post that caught my attention in my feed. I'm shocked.
The new policy:
* Allows post authors to suppress any disagreement or correction at will.
* STILL does not allow blocking users
* Force feeds these private and immune from criticism posts on all participants in a collective feed, with no way to opt out, mute, or block any egregious abusers.
This is a feature combination that isn't seen on any successful site. For good reason. As others have mentioned sites where authors control participation always rely on readers being able to opt in, then opt out if the author deviates from good faith contribution (in the reader's view). Forums where you cannot opt out do not allow conflicts of interest in moderation. Anyone moderating on their own disagreements is (and should be) viewed with suspicion.
Honestly, even the refusal to allow users to block and mute each other has always been a toxic trait of lesswrong. But being force fed posts and comments from bad faith debaters with no ability to refute, block or mute would make for a site even worse than x.com, at least in terms of technology for facilitating healthy conversation.
It should have been immediately obvious that as soon as posts become author controlled spaces, readers must be able to choose which authors they follow. How was this able to happen? Were there no adults in the room?
1We have the instinct to consume sugar because it is the most concentrated form of energy that humans can process, not because it is naturally paired with vitamins.
Sugar is desirable as the most easily accessible form of energy. Being concentrated is more useful for long term storage in a mobile form, hence the use of the more concentrated fat.
UPI Reporter Dan Olmsted went looking for the autistic Amish. In a community where he should have found 50 profound autistics, he found 3.
He went looking for autistics in a community mostly known for rejecting Science and Engineering? It 'should' be expected that the rate of autism is the same as in the general population? That's... not what I would expect. Strong social penalties for technology use for many generations would be a rather effective way to cull autistic tendencies from a population.
I think this is about the only scenario on LW that someone can be justifiably downvoted for that statement.
I up-voted it for dissenting against sloppy thinking disguised as being deep or clever. Twisting the word 'god' to include other things that do fit the original, literal or intended meaning of the term results in useless equivocation.
Hubris isn't something that destroys you, it's something you are punished for. By the gods!
Or by physics. Not all consequences for overconfidence are social.
There's a thought. While not FAIs, I wonder how much LLMs are corrupted by how much power they are primed to consider that they have. I am guessing a huge amount. When speaking as if a person with higher status I expect it to convey more self serving arguments.
Anyone know if this has been studied?