Vitalik Buterin pfp
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
One meta belief I have, is that I think "on the face pursuing idealistic objective A, but actually being tilted toward selfish objective B" is better than "openly pursuing objective B". Many seem to believe the opposite, typically saying something like "at least the latter is honest". I feel like what this misses, is that maintaining the face of pursuing idealistic objective A, and using A to coordinate a large coalition, is a pretty big speed bump against attempts to pursue B too brazenly. When "the mask comes off", things actually become much worse, and strategies that pursue B at high costs to other values (including A, and also often general human decency) become unlocked. Are there any good arguments against this intuition I have? (Whether generalized, or about specific situations)
51 replies
312 recasts
1412 reactions
phil pfp
phil
@phil
The defense is that it erodes trust. If reliable people condone saying one thing while doing another, then it gives bad actors an excuse to do it more brazenly. Similar tactics include greenwashing, ESG, or the use of charitable donations to offset e.g. poor working conditions.
3 replies
28 recasts
170 reactions
KP pfp
KP
@kpx
a- Pursuing A only b- Openly Pursuing A, tilted to B c- Openly Pursuing B, tilted to A d- Pursuing B only ig @vitalik.eth isn't saying b is the best way, just b is better than d
1 reply
0 recast
7 reactions
z0z5 pfp
z0z5
@zoo
ESG is a perfect example. being clearly two faced can taint the public image of A and lead to malaise wrt both A and human nature generally
0 reply
0 recast
4 reactions