I take your point about "Welfareans" vs hedonium as beings rather than things, perhaps that would improve consensus building on this. 

That being said, I don't really expect whatever these entities are to be anything like what we are accustomed to calling persons. A big part of this is that I don't see any reason for experiences to be changing over time; they wouldn't need to be aging or learning or growing satiated or accustomed. 

Perhaps this is just my hedonist bias coming through -  certainly there's room for compromise. But unfortunately my experience is that lots of people are strongly compelled by experience machine arguments and are unwilling to make the slightest concession to the hedonist position. 

Changed my mind, I like this. I'm going to call them Welfareans from now on.

I'm very pro-deprioritizing of community posts. They invariably get way more engagement then other topics and I don't think this is only an FTX related phenomenon. Community posts are the manifestation of in/out group tensions and come with all of the associated poor judgement and decorum. The EA forum's politics and religion.

Obviously they are needed to an extent, but it is entirely reasonable to give the less contentious contributions a boost.

AI safety pretty clearly swallows longtermist community building. If we want longtermism to be built and developed it needs to be very explicitly aimed at, not just mentioned on the side. I suspect that general EA group community building is better for this reason too - it isn't overwhelmed by any one object level cause/career/demographic.

Morality is Objective

I don't this is an important or interesting question, at least not over the type of disagreement we are seeing here. The scope of the question (and of possible views) is larger than BB seems to acknowledge. At the very least, it is obvious to me that there is a type of realism/objectivity that is 

1. Endorsed by at least some realists, especially with certain religious views.

2. Ontologically much more significant then BB is willing to defend.

Why ignore this? 

There's a lot of good, old, semi-formal content on the GiveWell blog: https://blog.givewell.org/ If you do some searches, you may be able to find the subject touched on. 

I'm not sure if they have done any formal review of the subject however.

I don't have anything to add about the intra-cause effectiveness multiplier debate. But much of the multiplier over the average charity is simply due to very poor cause selection. So while I applaud OP for wanting rigorous empirical evidence, some comparisons simply don't require peer-reviewed studies. We can still reason well in the absence of easy quantification

Dogs and cats vs farmed animal causes is a great example. But animal shelters vs GHD is just as tenable.

This isn't an esoteric point; a substantial amount of donations are simply to bad causes. Poverty alleviation in rich countries (not political or policy directed), most mutual aid campaigns, feeding or clothing the poor in the rich world, most rich-world DEI related activism lacking political aims (movement building or policy is at least more plausible), most ecological efforts, undirected scholarship funds, the arts. 

I'm comfortable suggesting that any of these are at least 1000x less cost effective.

Hot take, but political violence is bad and will continue to be bad in the foreseeable near-term future. That's all I came here to say folks, have a great rest of your day.

True. Yeah I'm sketching out a story about the background mechanics here that I think is plausible enough to partly under-cut the premise of this post; but the real bottom line is that this is just a single out-of-context sentence. Mountains out of mole hills.

Sort of. But claiming that you are an EA organization is at least 80% of what makes you one in the eyes of the public, as well as much of self-identification among employees. Ex: There's a big difference between a company that happens to be full of Mormons and a company that is full of Mormons that calls itself "a Mormon company".

No. Just deflect, which admittedly, is difficult to do, but CEOs do it all the time. Ideally she should have been clear about her own personal relationship with EA, but then moved on. Insofar as she was (or seemed) dishonest here, it didn't help; the wired article is proof of that.
It's hard to pin-point a clear line not to cross, but something like "this is an EA company" would be one, as would "we are guided by the values of the EA movement".