"Content moderation" is not always a bad thing, but you can't jump directly from "Content moderation can be important" to "Banning Trump, on balance, will not be harmful".
The important value behind freedom of association is not in conflict with the important value behind freedom of speech, and it's possible to decline to associate with someone without it being a violation of the latter principle. If LW bans someone because they're [perceived to be] a spammer that provides no value to the forum, then there's no freedom of speech issue. If LW starts banning people for proposing ideas that are counter to the beliefs of the moderators because it's easier to pretend you're right if you don't have to address challenging arguments, then that's bad content moderation and LW would certainly suffer for it.
The question isn't over whether "it's possible for moderation to be good", it's whether the ban was motivated in part or full by an attempt to avoid having to deal with something that is more persuasive than Twitter would like it to be. If this is the case, then it does change the ultimate point.
What would you expect the world to look like if that weren't at all part of the motivation?
What would you expect the world to look like if it were a bigger part of the motivation than Twitter et al would like to admit?
The world would be better if people treated more situations like the first set of problems, and less situations like the second set of problems. How to do that?
It sounds like the question is essentially "How to do hard mode?".
On a small scale, it's not super intimidating. Just do the right thing and take your spouse to the place you both like. Be someone who cares about finding good outcomes for both of you, and marry someone who sees it. There are real gains here, and with the annoyance you save yourself by not sacrificing for the sake of showing sacrifice, you can maintain motivation to sacrifice when the payoff is actually worth it -- and to find opportunities to do so. When you can see that you don't actually need to display that costly signal, it's usually a pretty easy choice to make.
Forging a deeper and more efficient connection does require allowing potential for conflict so that you can distinguish yourself from the person who is only doing things for shallow/selfish reasons. Distinguish yourself by showing willingness to entertain such accusations, knowing that the truth will show through. Invite those conflicts when you have enough slack to turn it into play, and keep enough slack that you can. "Does this dress make my ass look fat?" -- can you pull off "The *dress* doesn't, no" and get a laugh, or are you stuck where there's only one acceptable answer? If you can, demonstrate that it's okay to suggest the "unthinkable" and keep poking until you can find the edge of the envelope. If not, or when you've reached the point where you can't, then stop and ask why. Address the problem. Rinse and repeat with the next harder thing, as you become ready to.
On a larger scale, it gets a lot harder. You can no longer afford to just walk away from anyone who doesn't already mostly get it, and you don't have so much time and attention to work. There are things you can do, and I don't want to suggest that it's "not doable". You can start to presuppose the framings that you've worked hard to create and justify in the past, using stories from past experience and social proof to support them in the cases where you're challenged -- which might be less than you think, since the ability to presuppose such things without preemptively flinching defensively can be powerful subcommunication. You can start to build social groups/communities/institutions to scale these principles, and spread to the extent that your extra ability to direct motivation towards good outcomes allows you to out-compete the alternatives.
I just don't get the impression that there's any "easy" answer. If you want people to donate to your political campaign even though you won't play favorites like the other guy will, I think you have to genuinely have to be able to expect that your donors will be more personally rewarded by the larger total pie and recognition of doing the right thing than they will in the alternative where they donate to have someone fight to give them more of a smaller pie -- and are perceived however you let that be perceived.
This answer is great because it takes the problem with the initial game (one person gets to update and the other doesn't) and returns the symmetry by allowing both players to update. The end result shows who is better at Aumann updating and should get you closer to the real answer.
If you'd rather know who has the best private beliefs to start with, you can resolve the asymmetry in the other direction and make everyone commit to their numbers before hearing anyone else's. This adds a slight bit of complexity if you can't trust the competitors to be honest, but it's easily solved by either paper/pencil or everyone texting their answer to the person who is going to keep their phone in their pocket and say their answer first.
The official recommendations are crazy low. Zvi's recommendation here of 5000IU/day is the number I normally hear from smart people who have actually done their research.
The RCT showing vitamin D to help with covid used quite a bit. This converter from mg to IU suggests that the dose is at least somewhere around 20k on the first day and a total of 40k over the course of the week. The form they used (calcifediol) is also more potent, and if I'm understanding the following comment from the paper correctly, that means the actual number is closer to 200k/400k. (I'm a bit rushed on this, so it's worth double checking here)
In addition, calcifediol is more potent when compared to oral vitamin D3 . In subjects with a deficient state of vitamin D, and administering physiological doses (up to 25 μg or 1000 IU daily, approximately 1 in 3 molecules of vitamin D appears as 25OHD; the efficacy of conversion is lower (about 1 in 10 molecules) when pharmacological doses of vitamin D/25OHD are used. 
I've always been confused why the official recommendations for vitamin D are so darn low, but it seems that there might be an answer that is fairly straight forward (and not very flattering to the those coming up with the recommended values). It looks like it might be a simple conflation between "standard error of the mean" and "standard deviation" of the population itself.
(If you're worried about the difference being due to random chance, feel free to multiply the number of animals by a million.)[...]They vary from these patterns, but never enough that they are flying the same route on the same day at the same time at the same time of year. If you want to compare, you can group flights by cities or day or time or season, but not all of them.
(If you're worried about the difference being due to random chance, feel free to multiply the number of animals by a million.)
They vary from these patterns, but never enough that they are flying the same route on the same day at the same time at the same time of year. If you want to compare, you can group flights by cities or day or time or season, but not all of them.
The problem you're using Simpson's paradox to point at does not have this same property of "multiplying the size of the data set by arbitrarily large numbers doesn't help". If you can keep taking data until randomness chance is no issue, then they will end up having sufficient data in all the same subgroups, and you can just read the correct answer off the last million times they both flew in the same city/day/time/season simultaneously.
The problem you're pointing at fundamentally boils down to not having enough data to force your conclusions, and therefore needing to make judgement about how important season is compared to time of day so that you can determine when conditioning on more factors will help relevance more than it will hurt by adding more noise.
Hypothetically, what would the right response be if you noticed that one of the main vaccine trials has really terrible blinding (e.g. participants are talking about how to tell whether you get the placebo in the waiting room)?
It seems like it would really mess up the data, probably resulting in the people who got the the vaccine taking extra risk and leading the study to understate the effectiveness. Ideally, "tell the researchers" would be the obvious right answer, but are there perverse incentives at play that make the best response something else?
If I didn’t have people thanking me every week for doing these, it would be difficult to keep going.
Thanks Zvi. The effort is definitely appreciated.
There were 50 patients in the treatment group. None were admitted to the ICU. There were 26 patients in the control group. Half of them, 13 out of 26, were admitted to the ICU. So 13/26 vs. 0/50.
That's not what the paper says
Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%),
The conclusions still hold, of course.
Adjusting in the other direction seems useful as well. If someone Strong Upvotes ten times less frequently than average I would want to see their strong upvote as worth somewhat more.
Voting based on current karma is a good thing.
Without that, a post that is unanimously barely worth upvoting will get an absurd amount of upvotes while another post which is recognized as earth shatteringly important by 50% will fail to stand out. Voting based on current karma gives you a measure of the *magnitude* of people's like for a comment as well as the direction, and you don't want to throw that information out.
If everyone votes based on what they think the total karma should be, then a post's karma reflects [a weighted average of opinions on what the post's total karma should be] rather than [a weighted average of opinions on the post].
This isn't true.
If people vote based on what the karma should be, the final value you get is the median of what people think the karma should be -- i.e. a median of people's opinion of the post. If you force people to ignore the current karma, you don't actually get a weighted average of opinions on the post because there's very little flexibility in how strongly you upvote a post. In order to get that magnitude signal back, you'd have to dilute your voting with dither, and while that will no doubt happen to some extent (people might be too lazy to upvote slightly-good posts, but will make sure to upvote great ones), you will get an overestimate of the value of slightly-good posts.
This is bad, because the great posts hold a disproportionate share of the value, and we very much want them to rise to the top and stand out above the rest.
You are very much in the minority if you want to abolish norms in general.
There's a parallel here with the fifth amendment's protection from self incrimination making it harder to enforce laws and laws being good on average. This isn't paradoxical because the fifth amendment doesn't make it equally difficult to enforce all laws. Actions that harm other people tend to have other ways of leaving evidence that can be used to convict. If you murder someone, the body is proof that someone has been harmed and the DNA in your van points towards you being the culprit. If you steal someone's bike, you don't have to confess in order to be caught with the stolen bike. On the other hand, things that stay in the privacy of your own home with consenting adults are *much* harder to acquire evidence for if you aren't allowed to force people to testify against themselves. They're also much less likely to be things that actually need to be sought out and punished.If it were the case that one coherent agent were picking all the rules with good intent, then it wouldn't make sense to create rules that make enforcement of other rules harder. There isn't one coherent agent picking all the rules and intent isn't always good, so it's important to fight for meta rules that make it selectively hard to enforce any bad rules that get through.You can try to argue that preventing blackmail isn't selective *enough* (or that it selects in the wrong direction), but you can't just equate blackmail with "norm enforcement [applied evenly across the board]".