It seems you didn’t look very hard! https://x.com/shakeelhashim/status/1802493753841594711?s=46

You’ve misleadingly quoted me here. I said I was delighted to see The Guardian pick up my reporting on Brian Chau, not that I was delighted with the piece overall. I’m surprised that someone committed to truth-seeking would mislead forum users like this.

Someone sent the article to me, I thought it was interesting and tweeted about it. I live in the UK so maybe I saw it before others woke up?

I didn’t mention Habryka in any of my tweets. I mentioned him in this forum comment because he is the only person in this situation who I know is involved in EA “leadership”.

The definition of “controversial” is “giving rise or likely to give rise to controversy or public disagreement”. The definition of “controversy” is “prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion”. This unusually active thread is, quite clearly, an example of “prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion”.

One thing Manifest could do is stop actively associating with EA — promoting their events and funding platforms on this forum, etc. etc.

Of course Manifest is controversial; the very active and heated debate on this post is evidence of that!

now that I no longer work at CEA, no

You are of course entitled to that view, but I find it morally wrong!

Cease funding, stop giving them booths at EAG, stop inviting Habryka et al to EA leadership events like Meta Coordination Forum.