1. Cancellation is defined as a large-scale public shaming campaign leading to some form of de-platforming.
2. Cancellation applies to a person with a reasonably large public following.
3. Cancellation is signaled (sufficiently but not necessarily) by the person having to react to the situation publicly.
4. For this market: The proximate cause of the cancellation is a position held on a Manifold question (any type).
5. I reserve the right to make a final decision and will not count manipulation attempts towards a YES resolution.
Related markets:
Related questions
@brubsby I am thinking about ways to operationalize this.
What about posting or sharing an apology/non-apology statement about a position on Manifold, as a reaction to a controversy? This should capture all campaigns large enough to register on the canceled's person radar -- except if they just chose to ignore the controversy outright.
I can't think of any other objective criterion right now.
I've thought of using polls or predetermined experts but IMO this doesn't really get around the "I know it when you see it" problem, it just pushes the subjectivity elsewhere.
If I can't find a good objective criterion by the end of the month, I'll stick with a criterion of the flavor "This should be pretty obvious."
@jgyou one important aspect that merits consideration is that the resolution criteria should be robust against actors attempting to get "cancelled" by the definition of this market to manipulate it. e.g. levi making intentionally controversial markets and doing a fake apology after conjuring sockpuppet outrage with bot likes
i.e. be cognizant of the moral hazards you are creating when formulating the resolution criteria
@brubsby Well, that's the problem with trying to make a resolution objective. Create an objective, and it becomes hackable by the Levis of this world -- sort of a reverse Goodhart's law.
Say I (reasonably) assume that one needs to be a public figure to be cancellable. I could add a criterion stating that the person needs to have "more than X followers on a platform" with something like X=10k. This avoids trolls, right? If you have a following already, holding intentionally controversial positions is disincentivized, right?
No. Given strong enough incentives, Levi will come along, buy followers, and bot himself into cancellation.
IMO, Manifold largely avoids these types of problems by letting creators shoulder the burden of trust. They give market creators the leeway to call an outcome as they see it, and the result is a more robust system.
Given the above, my concrete proposal would be to clarify that
1. Cancellation is defined as a large-scale public shaming campaign leading to some form of deplatforming.
2. Cancellation applies to a person with a reasonably large following.
3. Cancellation is signaled (sufficiently but not necessarily) by the person having to react to the situation publicly.
4. For this market: The proximate cause of the cancellation is a position held on Manifold. E.g.: "I can't believe Levi thinks this."
5. I reserve the right to make a final decision, and will not count manipulation attempts towards a YES resolution.
@jgyou i think that's a reasonably concrete set of subjective criteria, my original qualm was less about the subjectivity itself but the implicit subjectivity.
still probably wouldn't bet in a subjective question about a political wedge issue though, especially when the creator's motives for the market are unclear (no implicature here, just trying to be descriptive in my reasoning)
however, i am curious as to what you consider to be the definition of "deplatforming" in this resolution. it doesn't seem like public opinion can, alone, mechanically result in someone being deplatformed from manifold, except for through action of the site owners, like enacting a ban in response to public opinion. which, it seems like it would also be subjective, as i would imagine it's highly unlikely that the public reasoning for a ban would be "because you got cancelled we are now deplatforming you"