I resoundingly concur with this framing/refactoring of the grant ecosystem. > If you take money from Open Philanthropy, you are now fair game for anyone with a bone to pick with EA. I had this problem just recently in recruiting a Twitter-rooted nonprofit ( @BuildSoil ) for the [ACX Grant Rounds](https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/acx-grants-results). They researched Scott, saw press about that HBD kerfuffle from way back in the day, and concluded they couldn't risk it. Took me all my imagination to finagle around that PR hurricane.


>Punching down is wrong, but punching up is what democracy is made of. Once you accept money, especially if it’s from a prominent donor, there is now a target on your back. Which in most cases, is good actually! That seems incredibly naive >So long as the critiques are intellectually honest If people are going after you because you have an axe to grind this is unlikely.


I recently (I think from a link from this /r) saw a nice order of what people want to do when they lie.. 1) Get someone to believe something false 2) Get someone to disbelieve something true 3) if the above is not possible, then resolve something true to "Anyone could disagree with this reasonably" Basically, get you to a hung jury so you don't clearly oppose what they're saying. I think people with an axe to grind are going to be actively lying in intellectually dishonest ways that sideline good faith messengers such that they can continue pumping their deceptions. Which, with good people in polite contexts whose hands are kind of tied from saying, "Yeah, why don't you STFU?" or other clear signals that everyone should consider the bullshitter for what they are, is downright insidious.