Executive summary: This exploratory post outlines the author’s evolving views on whether advocacy organizations should adopt single-issue or multi-issue positioning, arguing that both strategies are valid depending on context, but that multi-issue positioning deserves greater support within Effective Altruism and may be strategically preferable for smaller movements. Key points:
Single- vs. Multi-Issue Framing Should Be Chosen Early and Rarely Changed: The author argues that organizations should commit to their positioning strategy from the outset to maintain supporter trust and legitimacy, and not shift stance opportunistically.
Supporter Dynamics Vary by Positioning Strategy: A simple model shows that while single-issue organizations avoid alienating potential allies, they may struggle to attract people who expect solidarity across causes; conversely, multi-issue organizations can reach broader but more ideologically narrow audiences, especially when issues are correlated or highly salient.
Expertise and Legitimacy Favor Caution in Commenting: The author expresses reluctance to speak on issues outside their domain, citing a lack of deep understanding, fear of reputational risk, and concerns about betraying the trust of supporters who aligned with the organization’s original scope.
Multi-Issue Advocacy Can Be More Cooperative and Strategic: Defending public goods like freedom of expression, reciprocating support between movements, and aligning with expectations in low-trust societies may justify multi-issue engagement—particularly for smaller movements that benefit from heightened visibility.
Context Matters Deeply: The author emphasizes that issue salience, political polarization, and societal trust norms all affect whether single-issue or multi-issue strategies will maximize counterfactual impact—suggesting experimentation and local adaptation over dogma.
Coercive Pressures May Undermine Neutrality Policies: Rather than risk breaking neutrality under pressure during controversial moments, the author suggests it may be wiser for some organizations to adopt multi-issue positioning proactively and transparently.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This exploratory post outlines the author’s evolving views on whether advocacy organizations should adopt single-issue or multi-issue positioning, arguing that both strategies are valid depending on context, but that multi-issue positioning deserves greater support within Effective Altruism and may be strategically preferable for smaller movements. Key points:
Single- vs. Multi-Issue Framing Should Be Chosen Early and Rarely Changed: The author argues that organizations should commit to their positioning strategy from the outset to maintain supporter trust and legitimacy, and not shift stance opportunistically.
Supporter Dynamics Vary by Positioning Strategy: A simple model shows that while single-issue organizations avoid alienating potential allies, they may struggle to attract people who expect solidarity across causes; conversely, multi-issue organizations can reach broader but more ideologically narrow audiences, especially when issues are correlated or highly salient.
Expertise and Legitimacy Favor Caution in Commenting: The author expresses reluctance to speak on issues outside their domain, citing a lack of deep understanding, fear of reputational risk, and concerns about betraying the trust of supporters who aligned with the organization’s original scope.
Multi-Issue Advocacy Can Be More Cooperative and Strategic: Defending public goods like freedom of expression, reciprocating support between movements, and aligning with expectations in low-trust societies may justify multi-issue engagement—particularly for smaller movements that benefit from heightened visibility.
Context Matters Deeply: The author emphasizes that issue salience, political polarization, and societal trust norms all affect whether single-issue or multi-issue strategies will maximize counterfactual impact—suggesting experimentation and local adaptation over dogma.
Coercive Pressures May Undermine Neutrality Policies: Rather than risk breaking neutrality under pressure during controversial moments, the author suggests it may be wiser for some organizations to adopt multi-issue positioning proactively and transparently.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.