There is some internal conflict between more rationalist EAs and more progressive ones

Favoring controversial ideas is not the same as favoring truthseeking.

The manifest guardian article was poorly written

All communities should be representative of the country they are in

The majority of Manifest's sessions and guests were not controversial.

All communities should aim for 50/50 gender representation

As an influential but young event, Manifest's speaker choices shape the forecasting field's growth.

Some of the special guests invited to Manifest held awful views

Inviting controversial speakers risks an "evaporative cooling" effect of reasonable people leaving.

It is good that spaces exist where even ugly or controversial views can be discussed politely

Platforming speakers with racist or eugenic views makes conferences unwelcoming to underrepresented groups

When choosing between optimising for reputation or truthseeking, I pick truthseeking

Test

EA should not run events at rationalist orgs or let rationalist orgs present at EAGs

EA should shun and cut ties with Manifold for the views platformed at Manifest.

When choosing between optimising for a good reputation or truthseeking, I pick a good reputation

Manifold's recent speaker choices have been at least slightly too controversial

Manifest is open to attendees with a broad range of views, which is admirable.

Manifest organizers have shown poor judgment in weighing tradeoffs around controversial speakers.

I personally don't want to be associated with manifest, if they are going to have guests like this

Cutting ties with Manifold over Manifest would constitute an unacceptable purity test.

Manifest organizers adequately addressed concerns around speakers in their public comments.

Manifest was controversial before/without the guardian article

The core organizing team identifies as EA but Manifest is not marketed as an EA event.

About 15-25% of Manifest attendees likely identify as EA.

Conference organisers in any way associated with EA should be more selective about giving a platform to controversial speakers.

Manifold has received substantial funding from EA sources

Hanania has written some thought-provoking articles

Manifest's speaker choices have damaged its ability to attract top forecasting speaker talent.

Manifest's controversies are overblown based on a small number of cherry-picked examples.

Manifest aims to bring together people with opposing views rather than be an echo chamber.

Manifest attendees debating controversial ideas politely is preferable to those debates happening elsewhere.

EA should maintain a clearer separation from the rationalist community in terms of funding and use of event spaces

Manifest's controversies are far too risky to EA's reputation by association.

.Manifest 2024 was overall a great success based on attendee feedback.

If poorly written articles can get EA to consider cutting ties, more such articles will be written

Brian Chau deserves to be invited to events sometimes as a result of his leading an e/acc org

I think seeking a good reputation at the expense of knowing or saying truths will tend to lead to a bad reputation.

Use of offensive/edgy language was common among some attendees at Manifest.

Manifest has not been sponsored by EA funders; funding comes from tickets and sponsorships.