4 ms·
Because EA is about overall impact. (At least that's one strand of thought in EA, for those that lean more towards utilitarianism.) He hurt so many people and c
by hackerlight 4y ago
Because EA is about overall impact. (At least that's one strand of thought in EA, for those that lean more towards utilitarianism.) He hurt so many people and caused so much distrust that his overall impact is negative. It is therefore against the principles of EA. That's not the No True Scotsman fallacy.
- gilleain 4y agoThat's convenient. So when EA has a positive impact, it's EA. When it has a negative impact it's definitely NOT EA. Do I have that right?
- hackerlight 4y agoYeah, I guess. EA by definition is doing good.
- adam_arthur 4y agoOr he was the lynchpin in killing crypto and thus brought a great good to the world in the end (at big expense to those caught in it). I don’t believe that, but seems equally valid