Some examples that could resolve this to YES:
A Twitter thread that goes viral about how inappropriate a certain market question is.
A Twitter thread that goes viral about how Manifold as a platform allows people to incentivize assassinations or other bad actions.
A strongly critical news article on Manifold that achieves significant community spread.
A calm, well-reasoned discussion about the pros and cons of Manifold doesn't count. There must be outrage and anger in order for this to resolve YES.
Markets on various sizes of controversy:
1,000
3.00(deleted)
I believe the Santa Paws drama resolves this market unambiguously:
359 likes on a tweet calling out Manifold for hosting controversial markets. On top of whatever drama happened in person at the event.
Another tweet, less likes but just for context:
@AndrewMcKnight Isaac commented this on another market, strongly implying (at least to me) that they do, based on the criteria of "interactions":
Regardless, I think this qualifies either way just from the attendance of the Santa Paws event. 96 reposts + 23 replies basically hits the criteria anyway as long as there's at least 4 people who didn't repost.
@AndrewMcKnight yea I had to go digging for screenshots. Here's the tweet I got the screenshot from (which includes a dig at the original author, for more spicy drama):
https://x.com/Vestboy_Myst/status/1734471090137677864?s=20
So this is the number of interactions at time of screenshot - it probably had a few more at the point it got deleted.
@DanMan314 the 96 retweets and 23 comments are more substantial interactions. I'm getting relegated for this lol.
If you use %-mentions isntead of links, people can see the probabilities more easily:
@Yev Yeah but those are too long to display nicely, and I can't add them as easily. We really need a mix of the two where I can choose what text represents the market link, and it still displays an updated percentage.