I appreciate the comment, and agree the case for venting feelings, allowing one's own status-beliefs to be visible, etc., is worth considering separately from the case for sharing facts accurately.

I do think the quote from Szilard, above, is discussing more than facts / [things with a truth value]. And I think there's real "virtue of having more actual contact with the world, and with other people" in sharing more of one's thoughts/feelings/attitudes/etc. Not, as you say, "all the false and irrational things that pass through one's head," because all kinds of unimportant nonsense passes through my head sometimes. But I do see some real "virtue of non-consequentialist communication" value to e.g. sharing those feelings, attitudes, viewpoints, ambitions, etc that are the persistent causes of my other thoughts and actions, and to sometimes trying to convey these via direct/poetical images ("smarter than a potted plant") rather than clinical self-description ("I seem to be annoyed").

Main upside to doing this:

• They say things I'm not expecting; I say things they're not expecting; and we can more see through each others' eyes. (And then e.g. they help me notice ways I've been being unfair, or help me figure out what it is that's weirding me out about a particular thing, or are changed by some aspect of how I'm seeing things in a way that seems reality-contact-increasing, or etc.)

(I agree not all triggered sentences are a good idea to say, because sometimes everybody goes haywire in a useless+damaging way, and sometimes other people don't want to have to deal with my nonsense and shouldn't need to, and there's a whole art to this, but I don't think it's an art based in asking whether communication will have good effects.)

I'm sticking this in comments (not answers) section, because this doesn't directly bear on the OP's (1) and (2), nor on Eliezer in particular. But: a different important aspect of public, and private, communication, is that they have direct effects on what the speaker learns, and on whether others can see how the speaker is seeing the world. I mean: communication is sometimes about communicating, rather than about having consequentialist effects on those one is talking to.

Leo Szilard is in the running for all time best rationalists IMO, and one of the "ten commandments" he tried to live by was

Speak to all men as you do to yourself, with no concern for the effect you make, so that you do not shut them out from your world; lest in isolation the meaning of life slips out of sight and you lose the belief in the perfection of creation.

I think there's something to that.

I do think Palisade is operating in the realm of "trying to persuade people of stuff, and that is pretty fraught"

I haven't had that much contact with Palisade, but I interpreted them as more like "trying to interview people, see how they think, and provide them info they'll find useful, and let their curiosities/updates/etc be the judge of what they'll find useful", which is ... not fraught.

Or rather, as somewhere in between this and "trying to persuade people of stuff", but close enough to the former that I'm in favor, which I'm usually not for "persuasion" orgs.

Am I wrong?

Thanks for building; I'm looking forward to trying it. A main thing I keep wanting from LLM writing assistance (I'm not sure how hard this is; I've tried prompting LLMs myself, and failed to get the quality I wanted, but I didn't try with much patience or skill) is help applying Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style" to my writing. That is, I want help flagging phrases/words/sentence constructions that fail to be short and to the point.

I mean, I might be being dumb on all these points. But I personally disagree about:

• There being a viable "good system for community resolution of conflicts" in larger-than-Dunbar groups (to be fair, the post author does too... except then not at the end?)
• Phrasing the cause-of-enforcement as "you decide a person should 'face consequences for their actions'" (IMO, kicking people out of a community should usually be more about "they impose risks/costs we can't live with" and less about "making them face consequences")
• A sort of missing mood in the third bullet point ("Holistic judgment: a person should be kicked out if they seem, on the whole, to be bad for the community. They don't need to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a specific egregious crime.") I agree with the denotation of what's written. But there are two memorable-to-me cases where I was part of kicking someone out of the bay area rationalist community (not Brent, nothing most overseas readers would've heard about; quieter affairs); and where their lives and sanity rapidly got a lot worse, to the point where I'd put like 30% that the decision to exile them "ruined their lives". I wouldn't advise past-me against either decision, because they were people we really didn't know how to live with, with major repeated situations. But ... if someone seemed, on the whole, to be a mild force for boredom and awkwardness in the community, say, I certainly woudln't kick them out? (And again, I assume neither would the post's author, mingyuan; but I wish the bullet point e.g. said "if they seem, on the whole, to be someone we can't live with in a healthy fashion", or else differentiated between kicking someone out of a random meetup, vs doing things that'll trigger exile from a place that includes almost all a person's social ties, built up over years). 

I think my problem with the last section is only that it is not up to the very high standard that the rest of the post seems to me to hit, in which things are made unusually clear to even a young/inexperienced reader who is happy to believe relayed events but who wants to see the why of things for themself. (And I'm not providing these 'disagreements' because I think the article would be better with my opinions instead of the authors; I don't think I"m especially correct about these matters; I'm providing them as evidence that this part of the article is less visibly-true-to-all-readers, e.g. to me)

I appreciate this post for spelling out an unsolved problem that IMO is a major reason it's hard to build good community gatherings among large groups of people, and for including enough detail/evidence that I expect many, after reading it, can see how the trouble works in their own inside views. I slightly wish the author had omitted the final section ("What would be the elements of a good system?"), as it seems less evidence-backed than the rest (and I personally agree with its claims less), and its inclusion makes it a bit harder for me to recommend the article to those needing a problem-description.

I love this post and suspect it's content is true and underappreciated. (Though I admittedly haven't found any new ways to test it / etc since it came out.)

I like it, but I wish its main point would stick better in my mind somehow. (This was true when I read it last year, and again when I re-skimmed it now.) I, too like the ladder metaphor; I agree that it helps get people thinking about on-ramps, and that that this is valuable; I like the examples and techniques about remembering how you got there, imagining a new early-you who showed up today, etc. But: I still feel there's a "whole" you're gesturing at that's not quite sticking in my head, and I wonder if a slight rewrite could get it to?

I read this once when Sarah wrote it, just over a year ago, and I still think about it ~every two weeks or so. It convinced me that it's possible and desirable to be neutral along some purpose-relevant axes, and that I should keep my eye on where and how this is accomplished, and what it does. (I stayed convinced.) Hoping it makes it in.

I appreciate the explicit, fairly clear discussion of a likely gap in what I'm reading about parenting and kids. I was aware of a gap near here, but the post added a bit of detail to my model, and I like having it in common knowledge; I also hope it may encourage other such posts. (Plus, it's short and easy to read.)