The Exit Coercion Index (ECI): Measuring Functional Coercion in Formally Voluntary Systems — When Exit Allowed Does Not Mean Exit Feasible
Fuente:
Zenodo
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866901748792164352 |
|---|---|
| author | Yubi Dagogliano, Danny |
| author_facet | Yubi Dagogliano, Danny |
| contents | <p>Modern networked systems—digital platforms, financial infrastructure, government services—routinely claim voluntary participation based on the existence of exit options. This paper demonstrates that legal exit does not equal viable exit. We introduce the Exit Coercion Index (ECI): a formal measure of functional economic penalty incurred by leaving a system, even when exit is legally permitted.</p> <p>ECI captures coercion-by-dependency: a form of structural coercion invisible to traditional consent analysis, where participation is technically voluntary but practically mandatory. When exit destroys income, severs access to essential infrastructure, eliminates network value, or requires years to recover, consent is manufactured regardless of legal permission.</p> <p>We integrate ECI into Zero Leap Theory by refining the Consent gate: _eff = _legal · _viable, where _viable = (1+ECI)⁻¹. As ECI approaches infinity, effective consent approaches zero. This formalization enables auditable assessment of consent claims in networked systems.</p> <p>The paper provides:<br>(1) Formal ECI definition with two formulations (weighted and maximum-rule)<br>(2) Measurable proxies: income loss (ΔY), infrastructure access (ΔA), network value (ΔN), recovery time (T_rec)<br>(3) Operational thresholds: ECI ≤ 0.25 (GO), 0.25-0.50 (CONDITIONAL), > 0.50 (BLOCK), ≥ 0.75 (LOCK-IN TRAP)<br>(4) IAS-ECI Protocol: 12-item audit checklist<br>(5) Anti-proxy-washing rule: audits claiming consent based solely on legal exit availability are invalid by construction<br>(6) Juridical standard: Coercion-by-Dependency Negligence</p> <p>Case studies validate ECI across domains: Meta/Facebook (ECI 0.52-0.80), modern banking systems (ECI 0.85-0.90), China Social Credit (ECI ≈ 1.0), and platform economy/Uber (ECI 0.62-0.90).</p> <p>Core principle: If leaving destroys your economic life, your "consent" is coercion wearing a mask. Exit allowed ≠ exit feasible. A cage with an unlocked door is still a cage if walking out means death.</p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_18277547 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | The Exit Coercion Index (ECI): Measuring Functional Coercion in Formally Voluntary Systems — When Exit Allowed Does Not Mean Exit Feasible Yubi Dagogliano, Danny <p>Modern networked systems—digital platforms, financial infrastructure, government services—routinely claim voluntary participation based on the existence of exit options. This paper demonstrates that legal exit does not equal viable exit. We introduce the Exit Coercion Index (ECI): a formal measure of functional economic penalty incurred by leaving a system, even when exit is legally permitted.</p> <p>ECI captures coercion-by-dependency: a form of structural coercion invisible to traditional consent analysis, where participation is technically voluntary but practically mandatory. When exit destroys income, severs access to essential infrastructure, eliminates network value, or requires years to recover, consent is manufactured regardless of legal permission.</p> <p>We integrate ECI into Zero Leap Theory by refining the Consent gate: _eff = _legal · _viable, where _viable = (1+ECI)⁻¹. As ECI approaches infinity, effective consent approaches zero. This formalization enables auditable assessment of consent claims in networked systems.</p> <p>The paper provides:<br>(1) Formal ECI definition with two formulations (weighted and maximum-rule)<br>(2) Measurable proxies: income loss (ΔY), infrastructure access (ΔA), network value (ΔN), recovery time (T_rec)<br>(3) Operational thresholds: ECI ≤ 0.25 (GO), 0.25-0.50 (CONDITIONAL), > 0.50 (BLOCK), ≥ 0.75 (LOCK-IN TRAP)<br>(4) IAS-ECI Protocol: 12-item audit checklist<br>(5) Anti-proxy-washing rule: audits claiming consent based solely on legal exit availability are invalid by construction<br>(6) Juridical standard: Coercion-by-Dependency Negligence</p> <p>Case studies validate ECI across domains: Meta/Facebook (ECI 0.52-0.80), modern banking systems (ECI 0.85-0.90), China Social Credit (ECI ≈ 1.0), and platform economy/Uber (ECI 0.62-0.90).</p> <p>Core principle: If leaving destroys your economic life, your "consent" is coercion wearing a mask. Exit allowed ≠ exit feasible. A cage with an unlocked door is still a cage if walking out means death.</p> |
| title | The Exit Coercion Index (ECI): Measuring Functional Coercion in Formally Voluntary Systems — When Exit Allowed Does Not Mean Exit Feasible |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18277547 |