Handling level: how much care a question gets

A handling level is a setting that My Vote Forward proposes to attach to each public question, deciding how carefully opinions and group results on that question are handled. It borrows from shipping, where dangerous cargo is classified and placarded under the IMDG Code and ships and ports operate at one of three ISPS security levels. The highest handling level, called “placarded,” is for the most contested questions; it keeps opinion sharing strictly voluntary and requires larger groups before any total is published, while the vote stays sealed at every level.

Definition

Handling level. A design-proposal term in this framework: one of three settings (standard, heightened, placarded) attached to a question, which determines whether the system may prompt people to share a view, how large a group must be before results are published, and how finely results may be broken down. It never changes the secrecy of a vote.

Placarded issue. A question at the highest handling level because disclosing a view on it carries an unusually high risk of pressure, retaliation, or social cost, for people holding any view.

The term is not an industry or legal standard. It is this framework’s name for a practice modeled on two real maritime systems, described below. The full chapter is Handling levels.

Origin and history

Cargo placards. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) says the IMDG Code “was initially adopted in 1965 as a recommendatory instrument” and became mandatory under the SOLAS Convention “from 1 January 2004,” covering “packing, container traffic and stowage, with particular reference to the segregation of incompatible substances”.⁠¹ Hazardous materials are sorted into numbered classes with written definitions; U.S. regulations list nine,⁠² and require each freight container carrying hazardous material to “be placarded on each side and each end”.⁠³ The placard tells handlers how to treat the box without anyone opening it.

Security levels. The ISPS Code entered into force “on 1 July 2004” under SOLAS chapter XI-2.⁠⁴ IMO describes three levels: level 1 “normal,” level 2 “heightened,” and level 3 “exceptional,” each with its own set of protective measures.⁠⁵ In the United States the equivalents are MARSEC Levels, and the regulation says that “unless otherwise directed, each port, vessel, and facility shall operate at MARSEC Level 1,” with the Coast Guard Commandant setting the level “commensurate with risk”.⁠⁶

Why borrow from shipping. My Vote Forward’s picture of participation is a container ship: each sealed container is a private vote, the course is the shared priorities, and anything painted on the outside is an opinion its owner chose to show. Handling levels extend that picture to the question of how carefully each container is treated.

How a handling level is applied

As proposed, every question starts at level 1. A governance body may raise a question to level 2 or level 3 only against criteria published in advance, such as documented evidence that people in the relevant community avoid disclosing views on it. The level attaches to the question, and every answer receives identical treatment.

Exact numbers are not set; they belong to the privacy design described in Published releases and Small-group suppression.

Hypothetical example. On a placarded question about gun policy, a person who favors stricter rules and a person who opposes them both see no prompt to share, both are counted only inside a large group, and neither answer is shown by precinct.

Why some questions need more care

Research supports the idea that disclosure risk varies by topic and setting. Gibson and Sutherland report that “in 2020, more than four in ten people engaged in self-censorship” in the United States, and they point to worry that “expressing unpopular views will isolate and alienate people from their friends, family, and neighbors”.⁠⁷ Tourangeau and Yan’s review finds that misreporting on sensitive topics “is quite common” and “largely situational”.⁠⁸ Neither finding says any particular view is wrong to hold; both say that revealing views has costs that differ by question and setting.

Common confusions and neighboring terms

Not censorship. A handling level limits only what the system prompts and publishes. It places no limit on what anyone may say, anywhere.

Not a hazard rating of views. In shipping, the placard protects people from cargo. Here the protection runs the other way: it protects the person answering from pressure by others. No side and no position is labeled dangerous.

Not the same as salience. Salience is how much attention a subject gets. A question can be highly salient and low risk to disclose, or the reverse.

Close to k-anonymity and differential privacy. Those are techniques for protecting released data. A handling level decides how strongly to apply such techniques to a given question.

Different from consent. Consent governs whether one person shares one opinion. A handling level governs how the system behaves around everyone’s answers on one question.

How My Vote Forward uses the term

The framework uses handling levels to keep its disclosure rules consistent on the questions where pressure is highest, as described in Opinions and Handling levels. The term is a design proposal and has not been tested with participants.

Unresolved questions

• What evidence should justify raising a question’s level, and who collects it?
• Should levels vary by community, since the same question can be quiet in one place and heated in another?
• Does placarding a question reassure participants, or signal that the topic is taboo?