Why though? The idea that the IEA significantly changes its positions because its donors is just fantasy. It was set up and initially funded as a free market think tank, and remains that....
-
-
...We know what their posisions on issues are, we know who runs it, we know the people who do their research and are their public face. Why do their funders matter except to try and pressure them into stopping funding?
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
People invest their money because they believe it is for the good of the country, for ideological reasons or for private business reasons. Knowing who funds them won't actually help you to unpack diverse motives. It will only allow politicking by low-grade smear campaigners.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sebinsua @tristangrayedi and
The outcome would definitely be for activists to try to imply that funders are part of a conspiracy due to some tenuous financial relationship from a funder to Soros or the Rothchilds, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sebinsua @tristangrayedi and
It doesn't make sense to me to argue that it will improve information. It will definitely lower the tone of the discussion for the reasons I stated. Additionally rhetorically asking who funds somebody might be even more useful as a mechanism to try to connote secret conspiracy.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Like don't like and pretend that the reason people want to know who fund's the IEA is because people want to try and find ways to start PR campaigns to cut off their funding. If private individuals want to back the IEA they should be able to do so with the right to privacy.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Because that would be an indirect restriction on their right to freedom of expression. Specifically, a think-tank is a research organisation, and the laws that exist are to ensure equality during elections, not to allow others to disrupt research and advocacy with government.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Seb Insua Retweeted
I mean you appear to be explicitly interested in shutting down research that you disagree with. That is clearly undemocratic. What you're arguing for is bad. https://twitter.com/tristangrayedi/status/1058396381558308888?s=21 …
Seb Insua added,
-
-
Ridiculous strawman.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.