The main debate here is whether people who ever aid controversial things should be allowed to attend an event at all, and/or to give a talk about unrelated issues.
I think that characterization collapses some nuances that I think are relevant, in a way that takes some of the heat off of Manifest.
We can envision a continuum of potential organizer actions with respect to individuals with problematic views; the example I gave had the lower end of the continuum in mind while Manifest organizers took actions further along the continuum. I’m keeping “problematic views” pretty vague at most levels here because I’m trying to expose some cruxes at a high level.
The first levels involve ordinary invitees:
Organizers hold a ~open-admission event with no speakers or promotion targeted to problematic views; people with problematic views decide to buy tickets. Organizers do not create a special exception to their generally-applicable rules to exclude them.
Organizers hold a selective-admission event with no speakers or promotion targeted to problematic views; people with problematic views decide to apply without organizer encouragement. Organizers decide to admit them.
Organizers directly or indirectly recruit people with problematic views to attend (e.g., individual outreach, promoting the event in certain places).
Above that, we have special invitees and presenters:
4. Organizers give individuals with problematic views public special guest status and use their attendance to promote the event. In addition to making the event more attractive to people with problematic views more, this may reasonably cause people in the groups targeted by the problematic views to feel emotionally unwelcome at the event.
5. Organizers platform individuals with problematic views on topics clearly unrelated to their problematic views. Having someone with problematic views about race talk about prediction markets will often fall into this category. We might split it into 5A or 5B, depending on whether pre-event publicity makes the specific topic on which the person will be speaking very clear.
6. Organizers platform individuals with problematic views on topics that are potentially or somewhat related to their problematic views. Having someone with problematic views about race talk about biology in the next century will often fall into this category. I’d have to hear the individual’s presentation to know how related it was to the problematic views. Of course, a potential Manifest attendee who is a person of color won’t have this luxury.
7. Organizers platform individuals with problematic views on topics that are related to their problematic views.
In general, my view of how problematic is too problematic will tighten as we move across the continuum. In contrast, I see “whether people who ever aid controversial things should be allowed to attend an event at all” as grounded at levels 1 and 2, and “unrelated” doesn’t address that there’s a continuum of relatedness that separates my 5th and 6th levels.
The main debate here is whether people who ever aid controversial things should be allowed to attend an event at all, and/or to give a talk about unrelated issues.
I think that characterization collapses some nuances that I think are relevant, in a way that takes some of the heat off of Manifest.
We can envision a continuum of potential organizer actions with respect to individuals with problematic views; the example I gave had the lower end of the continuum in mind while Manifest organizers took actions further along the continuum. I’m keeping “problematic views” pretty vague at most levels here because I’m trying to expose some cruxes at a high level.
The first levels involve ordinary invitees:
Organizers hold a ~open-admission event with no speakers or promotion targeted to problematic views; people with problematic views decide to buy tickets. Organizers do not create a special exception to their generally-applicable rules to exclude them.
Organizers hold a selective-admission event with no speakers or promotion targeted to problematic views; people with problematic views decide to apply without organizer encouragement. Organizers decide to admit them.
Organizers directly or indirectly recruit people with problematic views to attend (e.g., individual outreach, promoting the event in certain places).
Above that, we have special invitees and presenters:
4. Organizers give individuals with problematic views public special guest status and use their attendance to promote the event. In addition to making the event more attractive to people with problematic views more, this may reasonably cause people in the groups targeted by the problematic views to feel emotionally unwelcome at the event.
5. Organizers platform individuals with problematic views on topics clearly unrelated to their problematic views. Having someone with problematic views about race talk about prediction markets will often fall into this category. We might split it into 5A or 5B, depending on whether pre-event publicity makes the specific topic on which the person will be speaking very clear.
6. Organizers platform individuals with problematic views on topics that are potentially or somewhat related to their problematic views. Having someone with problematic views about race talk about biology in the next century will often fall into this category. I’d have to hear the individual’s presentation to know how related it was to the problematic views. Of course, a potential Manifest attendee who is a person of color won’t have this luxury.
7. Organizers platform individuals with problematic views on topics that are related to their problematic views.
In general, my view of how problematic is too problematic will tighten as we move across the continuum. In contrast, I see “whether people who ever aid controversial things should be allowed to attend an event at all” as grounded at levels 1 and 2, and “unrelated” doesn’t address that there’s a continuum of relatedness that separates my 5th and 6th levels.