On a practical level: every time I've included a controversial attention-grabbing aside in a post, I've regretted it. The discussion and I assume people's attention always focuses on that aside, at the cost of my primary point. If you're trying to stir up anti-this-person sentiment in general that might be a plus, but if you want your actual argument to be considered on its merits it's a severe impairment. If you think the accusation is important I'd strongly encourage you to split the posts.
Nod. That's some of the reason why, if I say anything, I'm leaning towards saying it in a comment rather than footnote. That way readers from off-LW don't get distracted; and the discussion hopefully lives under a single comment that can be voted on separately and collapsed.
And, fortunately it's the kind of post where if it doesn't get much engagement by itself I won't be very sad.
The main thing I track is whether I expect healthy information flows when the information is relevant.
If someone was arrested for robbery and I'm citing their work on Quantum Mechanics, I wouldn't think it relevant to bring up. If they were being considered for a job looking after finances I'd want to make sure the person hiring them knew.
If I felt like nobody would tell them because it was all hush-hush, then I would be more likely to write something about it publicly... though not really in the stuff about quantum mechanics? Seems unfair to punish them in every possible channel, as long as they're receiving the actual costs involved (job opportunities, reputation amongst colleagues and coworkers, etc).
If I thought it was being super quashed, I might have a footnote at the start of my discussion of quantum mechanics saying "For the record I have ethical concerns about this person's behavior in other situations, here is a link to a brief shortform comment by me on that" or a link to info about it, but otherwise not bring it up.
In general, I think most disclaimers aren't worth it.
The penultimate word of your question answers it.
If someone else, unprompted, then cries stinking fish, you can suggest that that discussion take place elsewhere.
This seems like a strange thing to ask.
If someone has done something illegal, alert the appropriate authorities. If the person has violated the rules of some institution or group, alert the appropriate leaders or administrators of that group.
Bringing up any of those things in the context of mentioning a person in an unrelated context seems bizarre and pointless. The motivations that you list in your explanator comment… seem like non sequiturs, quite frankly. I don’t understand how any of those things translate into bringing up this matter when writing about unrelated things.
Again: institutions (including but not limited to the government) that have laws or rules also have mechanisms for the enforcement of those laws/rules. Avail yourself of those mechanisms. Don’t involve unrelated things, people, discussions, contexts, etc. in the matter.
I really hate attempts to discuss topics where details can't be shared. I suspect the right answer is to resolve, or at least acknowledge the accusations clearly, separately and in advance of citing the person. Then you can have a footnote pointing to that information, and stating that you find it irrelevant to the idea you're discussing.
Note that by doing so, you are to some extent supporting the apparent LW reaction to ignore the behavior - you believe it happened and was significant, but you don't want to participate in any consequences, and still want to give credit to the person for the idea (and/or use some of their fame to highlight the idea).
Alternately, if the idea is standalone and has sufficient support without the source, then say "this post is intended to stand alone - it's been discussed before, but not in this context." If someone else brings up the previous author and their crimes, then you respond with it's irrelevance (in your mind), but don't do it proactively.
All of this is dependent on the specifics of what the person did (or is suspected to have done), how tied to the person the ideas are, and whether it's important enough to tie yourself into the drama.
Oh, I was unclear about this and I'll edit into the body quickly. I didn't want to bring the details up here. But many details can be shared; I have little-to-no private knowledge and I intend to link to the public knowledge I have in the footnote or comment.
Fair enough. I think that's my actual objection - it's intentionally obfuscated what's happening here, and my complaints that specifics matter are ignored. For topics like this (where there's a lot of social uncertainty and an unclear equilibrium between multiple opposing desires), you need to generalize from multiple worked examples, not from first principles.
Some considerations I have:
(Spoilered to make it easier for people to write their own unprimed.)
As far as I know: the person has not admitted doing the thing; there has been no justice done, no public accountability; no reason to think the thing would not happen again if circumstances enabled.
I believe the user is in good standing on LW; they are "one of us". I might feel differently if I was referring to Roman Polanski's films, or the Unabomber's math papers. I might feel differently if I was not publishing on LW. (This point also relevant when choosing between a comment and a footnote. I publish on my blog and crosspost here, so a footnote would be more visible to outside readers.)
I don't know how many people are aware of the accusation. It was published on LW but might not have been seen widely. I don't know if the lack-of-reaction is because broadly speaking people don't know of the accusations; or think no-reaction is appropriate; or think "some reaction would be good but idk what and no one else is doing anything so uh"; or what.
I don't particularly have any public response in mind. The person could be banned from LW but I dunno if I think that would actually be good. I'm not actively trying to make anything happen. But the (apparent) complete lack of reaction does seem bad to me; and it seems more likely to me that making the accusation more widely known causes a reaction that I consider broadly positive than a reaction I consider broadly negative.
I am confident enough in the accusation to say "I believe _" rather than "it seems likely to me that ", but not confident enough to simply say "". (I'm reluctant to put this in terms of probabilities, partly because the difference between those three confidence levels doesn't just feel like a matter of probabilities to me?)
Many people have acted unethically and illegally in minor ways. This is not a minor way.
If I don't mention the belief in this situation, when do I? It will almost never be relevant. Create a whole new post to remind people of it? Bring it up whenever the person posts on LW? Those don't feel better, to me.
Pointing in the other direction, I feel like there's a kind of culture where people feel unable to mention anyone without disclaiming that every bad thing the person has done is bad. Like, I think [the idea of Orson Scott Card I've picked up from Reddit, and likely also the actual Orson Scott Card] is homophobic and that's bad. But I don't want anyone who mentions Orson Scott Card to feel compelled to say that he's a homophobe and that's bad. I do think mentioning the belief points in the direction towards that kind of culture; but I also don't want a culture where people don't mention such things because they don't want that kind of culture.
The weight of these feels pretty firmly on "mention the belief" to me.
If you are not confident enough in the strength of your evidence to simply say X, don't publish it at all. In particular you state that you are intending to act on a "credible accusation". This suggests that you do not actually have first-hand evidence of the truth of the matter, no matter how much you trust your source, and should be taken as further reason not to publish at all.
If you believe that a crime has been committed, that it should be punished, and have some testimony or other evidence to back up that accusation, we are not the people you should ...
What are you trying to achieve?
Is it that you feel insufficient attention was paid to this person's misdeeds and you want to focus attention on it?
Or is it that you feel uncomfortable with mentioning this person in a way that reinforces their status as a person in good standing on less wrong?
If the former, I would create a question post in the form "Why are we ignoring what X did?", linking to the original post bringing up their misdeeds.
If the latter it's more tricky. I don't think it's worth derailing your post for that purpose. If it's possible to avoid...
As far as I know: the person has not admitted doing the thing; there has been no justice done, no public accountability; no reason to think the thing would not happen again if circumstances enabled.
Is the thing something the person might not have realized that they were doing, or realized the gravity of? Has someone directly contacted the person in private?
(Extra paragraph because spoilers seemingly don't work on GreaterWrong if they cover a whole comment?)
Argh, maybe I should have obfuscated even those details, and e.g. instead of saying "this is not a minor way" say "I think it is relevant whether or not it is a minor way"; and conclude where the balance of the considerations pointed without saying which considerations pointed in which way?
I think probably that level of paranoia-or-something feels excessive. And it would have made the comment much harder to write.
If a bad experience goes unheard or unobserved somewhere the possibility of it being allievated is quite hard.
I would like to know if/that I would have hurt somebody even if I would initially disagree how that is forceful (but no conditionality that it needs to end or go in the direction of me agreeing).
You present the question as a *dilemma* with only two choices:
a) Give credit to person P's idea I. Discredit the person P by repeating accusations A and judging them believable. Risk criticism for stirring up irrelevant drama.
b) Give credit to I. Be complicit with P by staying silent on A.
But is this really a dilemma? Maybe you're mixing up two topics. Why not write *two* posts, one for each topic?
In the first post you discuss the accusations A. Explain why you feel the need to give those accusations credibility by repeating them publicly and judging them as believable. Let the discussion take its course. Wait for the result. If you really believe that these accusations should be aired here, then do it properly. Give the accused a proper chance to defend themselves. Make sure that you understand your own motives.
In the second post you then discuss the idea I. Any discussion about A would be off-topic for this post about I.
Something else to consider: exactly what do you want to happen as a result of publicizing the accusation? It sounds like you want people to listen to you and take action. But on what basis do you want them to do that? Are you expecting other people to hear an accusation from you and think "I should act solely basis on a statement from philh with no other evidence provided"?
Is that really an attitude you want to encourage? Even if you have some evidence, the people who you want to tell it to won't have any other than your word. They should ignore you, given reasonable norms.
There are two issues here: someone's accountability for their alleged actions, regardless of their other unrelated actions or ideas, and referencing their unrelated work. If you think the former needs to be dealt with but hasn't been, then you can initiate the process, if you are so inclined, or contact relevant LW admins to do so to let them evaluate whether it is a good idea. If you are focused on a topic and want to reference their work unrelated to the alleged actions, it seems like this is a right thing to do, or at least better than suppressing the knowledge of their contribution.
Oh, asking admins directly is probably a thing to do. I think I didn't just do that because...
So I don't want to sound like I'm demanding they do anything. And if I'm not demanding that, I'm kinda just asking them the same question I'm asking here, so why not just ask here? But there's an obvious answer to that, which is that I can give them details and they might be able to tell me things I don't know.
I think also partly because "easier to ask forgiveness than permission", but I don't particularly endorse that or expect them to forbid anything. (I suppose "we'd prefer you don't" is plausible, and then if I do the thing anyway I'd feel obliged to mention that they said that, but that's pretty far from forbidding.)
So I guess I'll contact them in the morning.
The way I'd think about this sort of question is: what am I trying to accomplish? If it's the sort of accusation where establishing common knowledge seems like it ought to significantly reduce the risk of future recurrence (or even mitigate harm in the event that the behavior is repeated), that makes the case for publishing stronger. The quality of the evidence matters too.
Also, just checking that you've considered the obvious options:
Nod, good thing to check on both points. I hadn't thought of the second until you suggested it. I think I should not personally do either.
One way to solve this would be to omit whatever you're referencing from your article, effectively lowering the popularity of that person.
I expect in the near-ish future to publish a thing. That thing references an idea that someone had and published on LW. I believe (having seen a credible accusation) that person has acted unethically and illegally, in ways irrelevant to the idea.
I currently intend to mention this belief, either in a footnote or a comment, along the lines of "this isn't relevant but I believe _" (and link to why I believe that). But I feel like doing so has the potential to stir up drama, and have a bunch of people telling me I shouldn't have said anything?
(Maybe relevant: in a kinda-similar situation, I recently had someone tell me I shouldn't have brought something up. But the situations were different in that I thought the thing clearly was relevant, that time, and bringing it up was clearly reasonable of me. It was frustrating, and I might have over-updated on how likely that kind of thing is to happen.)
So in the spirit of why I'm punching you, here's a space for
Assuming I do mention the thing, I can link here when I do and hopefully avoid the drama that might not have happened anyway.
Note that a blanket "do/don't mention", based on what I've said so far, feels unlikely to be very helpful here. I think there are probably situations compatible with what I describe where mentioning is good, and situations compatible with what I describe where mentioning is not good. The question is how we decide which is which.