I basically agree with @JWS' response. Generally, one should respond to poor-quality criticism when there is a risk that it will actually interfere with mission accomplishment. (This is in contrast to quality criticism, engagement with which will hopefully make EA better).

In general, the default rule for dealing with bad-faith, delusional, wildly inaccurate, etc. criticism on X and in similar places should be to ignore it. Consider the flat-earther movement. Many people have viewed debunkings of the flat-earther beliefs, which were doubtless produced merely for entertainment value because lots of people think it's fun to sneer at people with such beliefs. The problem is that now many, many more people know there is a flat-earther movement. The debunkers have given their ideas reach and may have even given them a smidgen of legitimacy by implying they are worth debunking. 

If Émile were a random person on X, this would likely be the correct approach. However, their ideas have reach and perceived legitimacy due to all the quotations in major media sources. Repeated appearances in such sources (that are not as a target of the piece) is a strong signal to most people that the individual is unlikely to be seriously dishonest from an intellectual perspective, is worth taking at least somewhat seriously, etc. 

Unless the reader is doing a lot of their own investigation, the media imprimatur will still carry some weight. Ignoring someone with such a media imprimatur is ordinarily unwise, as it makes it harder for readers inclined to do so independent research to find out what the critical flaws with that person's views are. Silence also makes it harder for future editors to detect that there are serious problems with the person and/or their views, and they are likely to defer to their colleagues' prior assessments that the person's reactions are worth covering in an EA-related story.

Ultimately, voting is an exercise in judgment by voters applying their own standards. I will say that I've seen very short text posts (as opposed to quick takes) get the same treatment.

Where the linkpost is to a video, I think it's usually low value unless there's enough information to enable the reader to make their own decision about whether to use their time to view it. I'm a little more forgiving with linkposted text, which can be quickly skimmed.

(Again, I did not vote and can only speculate on why others did)

I think there are some members who near-flexively downvote criticism . . . and they tend to vote on the earlier side. In contrast, your potential upvoters are probably not going to upvote without either watching the video or at least reading a good summary.

I do think video is often a bigger ask, as people can't really skim it like they can an article. If people don't want to watch, that is their perogative, maybe their loss. As for the meta-commentary, someone asked why you were getting downvotes, which invited that commentary in.

I'd add that Mark's rationale -- "disclosure always carries some risk" -- seems underspecified. I'm sure Mark, as a lawyer, can cobble together an NDA that sharply limits the verifier(s), and requires them to clear any reference to his name or identifying info from their computer after verification. Probably we'd be looking at flashing an ID, and providing a bar number / state of licensure. That would probably be enough, since AFAIK no major EA works as a public defender in NY.

There should be a moderate bar for linkposting, as it takes up one of the frontpage slots. People may be downvoting because they see a link post with no body text as a low-effort post, and thus less likely to reflect consideration of the bar.

I think that would be helpful -- Torres is just not the right messenger for this message in my opinion. The community has made up its mind on them, and there have been enough allegations of harassment on both sides that many voices in the middle would probably nope out of a Torres - EA Orthodoxy dialogue/debate.

Fully agree on paragraph two. On paragraph one, I do think certain past conduct could justify dismissal of a critic without engagement on the merits, such as a bad enough history of unfair and arguably dishonest quotations/citations.

Once you can't trust the other dialogue partner not to do that, the conversation is over. And I dont think anyone should feel an obligation to cite-check bad work. If one has reached that point -- I express no opinion as one who has generally kept a distance from Torres drama -- it would be reasonable to respond only to work that had been vetted by reputable publications, or that had other legible indicia of trustworthiness.

I believe Deborah edited the title, and we can't blame voters for voting on the title as it stood at the time of their vote.

I didn't vote, but I think it's reasonable to expect someone posting a link to say something of moderate substance about why they think it might be of value to the reader. I don't think "this is bad criticism of FHI" is enough. Mentioning that this person has a wide audience of 1.25MM would be just enough, while summarizing the critique would be better.

Thanks. I'd suggest waiting to post until you have time to write a little bit. Your post can get pushed off the frontpage pretty quickly if it attracts near-zero or negative karma, and posting a link where the context isn't either obvious or provided will generally draw a mixed-to-negative reaction. I think that's fair -- watching a video is a meaningful time commitment, and it's reasonable to expect posters to provide some information to help users decide whether it is an appropriate one to make. Here, I'd also mention that the video author has over 1.25MM subscribers to her channel, to establish that this isn't some ~random person almost no one is listening to anyway.

This is plausible, although I'd submit that it requires enough "optics voters" to be pretty bad at optics. Specifically, they would need to be unaware of the negative optical consequences of the comment here having been at -43. 

Moreover, there are presumably voters who downvoted Parr and upvoted Concerned User because they thought Parr's posts were deeply problematic and that Concerned User was right to call them out. For this hypothesis to work, they must have been substantially outnumbered by the group you describe as "intellectual freedom voters." (I say the "group you describe" because the described voting behavior would be the same one would expect from people who sympathize with Parr's views on the merits; I see no clear way to exclude the sympathy rationale on voting behavior alone.)