To my surprise, thrice in his recent 80,000 hours podcast interview with Robert Wiblin, Glen Weyl seems to point to me to represent a view that he dislikes. Yet, in all three cases, these disliked views aren’t remotely close to views that I hold.
What an absolutely ridiculous response from the man on twitter. "I don't think discussing how I (may) have mischaracterized you is productive, people (I'm speaking to) that know of you will understand me". Very bad faith. You are correct to enforce this norm Robin, whilst you don't 'need' support, you certainly have mine for whatever value one of your followers has.
Yes, Weyl uses "Robin Hanson" as a rather silly nerd-technocrat caricature, with about as much basis in reality as the John Nash of A Beautiful Mind.
I see his comments on Elephant in the Brain as offering a "Straussian" reading: Robin Hanson is fascinated with biases because he sees people obstinately resisting his overpowering rational arguments. That might not be any more charitable to you, but at least it is something you could debate.
Finally, I think you read too much into his Futarchy comments -- I think his "but" essentially intends to change the topic. Basically, Wiblin brings up an idea (Futarchy) and Weyl says, "Yeah, I don't want to talk about that... It does not relate to or address my point..." I would elaborate his next sentence as: "What I really object to is how I see Futarchy being marketed..." There, he accuses you of being the caricature bouncing off the walls yelling, "Do this! The reasons are so obvious!" To the extent that he is criticizing Futarchy, it is to say, "Overrated... nothing to see here... time to move on."