I hope we will endorse this, should it come to pass

Endorse what exactly? It is unclear to me what you mean there exactly.

This feels like misleading advertising to me, particularly "Election interference" and "Loss of social connection". Unless bluedot is doing some very different curriculum now and have a very different understanding of what alignment is. These bait-and-switch tactics might not be a good way to create a "big tent".

This seems false.

Consider three charities A,B,C and three voters X,Y,Z, who can donate $1 each. The matching funds are $3. Voter Z likes charity C and thinks A and B are useless, and gives everything to C. Voter Y likes charity B and thinks A and C are useless, and gives everything to B. Voter X likes charities A and B equally and thinks C is useless.

Then voter X can get more utility by giving everything to charity B, rather than splitting equally between A and B: If voter X gives everything to charity B, the proportions for charities A,B,C are $$0^2:(1+1{)}^2:1^2$$ If voter X splits between A and B, the proportions are $${\sqrt{1/2}}^2:(1+\sqrt{1/2}{)}^2:1^2$$ The latter gives less utility according to voter X.

I do remember this post having around 20 net upvotes about a day ago.

But some changes over time can also just be noise (if some people have strong-votes). Also, timezone correlations could also be an explanation (it would not surprise me if the US is more free-speech than Europe). Or there could be changes in the way the article gets found by different people. Or people change their vote after they changed their mind over the article. Or the article gets posted in a discord channel, without any intentions or instructions of brigading. Of course its still possible that the vote changes have some sketchy origin, and I am not against the forum moderators investigating these patterns.

This post is on a controversial topic, so lots of votes in both directions are to be expected.

The EA Forum should ban any discussion of race science, “human biodiversity”, or racial differences in IQ

Can you link to concrete examples of things on the EA Forum that would be deleted under the proposed new EA Forum rules?

I tried searching for "human biodiversity" but few of these posts seem like the kind of post where I would guess that you want them deleted.

Things that are found were mostly about the Manifest or Bostrom controversy. I am guessing you do not want to delete these. Or this post. In the wake of the Bostrom controversy there was also this heavily downvoted post that complained about "wokism". I am guessing this is the type of post that you want to see deleted. There is also this upvoted comment that argues against "human biodiversity", which, if I interpret your proposed rule change correctly, should also be deleted. (A rule that says "you are allowed to argue against HBD, but not for it" would be naive IMO, and I do not get the impression that you would endorse such a rule).

Overall, I do not remember seeing people discussing "human biodiversity" on the object level. It indeed seems off-topic for EA. And explicitly searching for it does not bring up a lot, and only in relation to EA controversies.

The section "International Game Theory" does not seem to me like an argument against AI as an existential risk.

If the USA and China decide to have a non-cooperative AI race, my sense is that this would increase existential risk rather than reduce it.

There is already a central repository of EA domains: https://ea.domains/. You could just add it there and wait to be contacted.

Just speculating here, but if you want to capture most of the energy of a star (e.g. by a Dyson swarm), this will be visible. And if you can only use a fraction of the energy available, this might reduce your expansion speeds.

If you take a bunch of random samples of a normal distribution, and only look at subsamples with median 2 sds out, in approximately ~0 subsamples will you find it equally likely to see + 0 sds and +4 sds.

Wait, are you claiming +0 SD is significantly more likely than +4 SD in a subsample with median +2 SD, or are you claiming that +4 SD is more likely than +0 SD? And what makes you think so?