These... don't seem that bad? I mean, given that they were selected for both (a) criticism and (b) being on twitter. Like, by twitter standards, if these examples are the typical case, it seems indicative of very unusually good PR for alignment.

It’s reassuring to see we’re somewhere between the “then they laugh at you” and “then they fight you” stage. I thought we were still mostly at “first they ignore you.”

I agree with many of those tweets. Many of them had actual good points.

I suspect e/acc is some sort of sock puppet op / astroturfing or something, and I've been trying to avoid signal boosting them.  

I'm not sure it's productive to engage with this stuff. Taking a GRAND STAND may feel good, but in many cases people end up becoming useful foils. Block liberally, don't engage, focus on what actually matters. 

I wonder what I expected to get out of this post - after all, I already don't use Twitter.

I would expect you to be be able to find these tweets, and hundreds more like them no matter how good alignment optics is. A lot of people use Twitter, and I could probably find similar tweets about Mother Theresa or Princess Diana. As such showing this doesn't actually tell us all that much TBH.

Practice rationalism on this.  What predictions do you make, and what conditional predictions on whatever actions you're advocating?  It feels a little like you're getting sucked into a status game by caring very much about who's saying what, rather than steelmanning the critiques and deciding if members of the EA community (disclosure: I am not one - I'm not part of sneerclub, but I do see the cult-like aspects of the bay-area subculture) should do anything differently.  As in, should you behave differently, separately from should you participate in the signaling and public conversations around this kind of thing for status purposes?

Note also that the criticism is not purely wrong.  "Revealed preferences say a lot" is a pretty compelling point.