Debate erupts over LessWrong policy allowing calls for violence
a user criticized lesswrong's policy of permitting specific calls for violence, arguing the platform focused on ai safety risk should adopt stricter moderation rules similar to x or substack.
members of the lesswrong community are challenging the site's permissive approach to content, specifically its allowance of specific calls for violence. moderation head oliver habryka argues that censoring such discussions prevents the community from persuading radicals that violence is ineffective and leads to rationalization in justified scenarios. the author contends this presents a false dichotomy between total censorship and absolutism, pointing out that platforms with free speech branding like x and substack successfully balance theoretical discussions of violence with bans on specific threats. this debate carries significant weight for the ai safety community, as lesswrong serves as a hub for discussions on ai existential threats, and its moderation norms reflect on the broader movement's reputation and the overton window of considered actions.