by posting it I don't necessarily endorse its exact contents. 

Well you did suggest people could "emulate" and "copy-paste"

Even if taken literally, this would only apply to Palantir employees who work directly on weapons systems or any software that is being used to commit violations of international law (such as war crimes). 

No, any employee who is 'involved' in arms, including totally unobjectionable sales to the US Government, would be involved. The language is quite clear that, while it includes illegal weapons, there is nothing to suggest it is limited to them. As far as I can see even accountants would be 'involved' - you can't make weapons without accounting!

PopVax is an Indian biotechnology company. Biotech is a type of pharma company. 

This seems quite burdensome. In order to accept a $10k donation from a 'high-risk' PopVax employee (listed on 80k's job board!) you'd have to:

Involve a wide range of senior people in your org:

A wide range of functions and units across CC are part of the process to decide on Donations and Partnerships. The process will typically include input from CC’s:

• Development Team
• Relevant program or project team
• Legal Team
• CEO
• Development Council
• Members of the Board of Directors, where relevant expertise is needed

Pay for a wealth screening database:

current and prospective Donors that meet the criteria for screening described above will be screened using a wealth screening database

Write a written report that is reviewed by many senior people:

the Development Team will provide a written report to the CEO, the Legal Team, any relevant program / project teams, the Development Council and board members selected by it and the Development Team for review and approval during the Qualification Stage of the fundraising pipeline.

be very diligent:

Decisions are taken after thorough examination of such Donation [emphasis added]

Review each year:

CC reviews Donors and their fundamentals every year at the renewal or annual anniversary of a multi-year relationship

Regularly stalk them on social media:

regularly monitors the media for developments linked to Donors. The monitoring is carried out by the Development Team with support from staff and relevant project teams as reasonably requested.

Communicate frequently with donors with feedback about their business practices:

CC aims to maintain a frequent, transparent and constructive engagement with Donors. This enables the CC to be a critical friend where appropriate.

... and a $10k donation from a Palantir employee would simply be totally prohibited. 

Overall it seems plausible to me that actually following this for a $10k donation would eat up most of the donation in due diligence overhead. My guess is that CC does not actually follow the letter of this policy in practice.

This sounds like the sort of thing you should have asked CEA about before posting.

I don't know whether such people are going around dming everyone like this.

Presumably not, as most people are not going around creating crime prediction markets that dramatically raise the salience of an implicit accusation. From their point of view I can see their response as being extremely restrained - you are making probabilistic public accusations that will predictably make them look bad, no matter how low the market price, and they're not responding publicly at all.

I'd like to better understand your criteria for relevance. 

There was some mental process that lead you to think this was good content to share on the EA forum. What this was was (at least to me, and I suspect to other readers) very opaque - so I suggest you explicitly mention it.

A good example is this post. It also introduces a topic with no explicit action items and doesn't provide 'direct factual support for current EA initiatives'. But it is pretty clear why it might be relevant to EA work, and the author explicitly included a section gesturing at the reasons to make it clear.

Are you suggesting that EA relevance requires either explicit action items or direct factual support for current EA initiatives?

No I am not.

I agree that not everything needs to supply random marginal facts about malaria. But at the same time I think concrete examples are useful to keep things grounded, and I think it's reasonable to adopt a policy of 'not relevant to EA until at least some evidence to the contrary is provided'. Apparently the OP does have some relevance in mind:

This matters because a lot of EA work involves studying revealed preferences in contexts with strong power dynamics (development economics, animal welfare, etc). If we miss these dynamics, we risk optimizing for the same coercive equilibria we're trying to fix.

I feel like it would have been good to spend like half the post on this! Maybe I am just being dumb but it is genuinely unclear to me what preference falsification the OP is worried about with animal welfare. Without this the post seems to be written as a long response to a question about sex that as far as I can tell no-one on the forum asked. 

Conversations people have with un-RLHF'd models.

Yup, I understand the general concept of preference falsification. My question is about the specific application. I think it would be helpful if you had a concrete example of where this would be relevant for e.g. malaria bednets or factory farming?

Thanks for sharing this. Perhaps you could explain the relevance to effective altruism a bit more explicitly?