Link: Interesting Video About Automation and the Singularity

Who is the unnamed actor who does this enforcing, establishing, and requiring?

Ideally everyone, but probably with some opinion leaders and media outlets being the ones to spread the news about norm violations.

How far does the contagion spread?

I'd assumed it'd be a full boycott rather than a boycott in ratios. A half-boycott seems likely to fail for the same reasons that trying to "eat less meat" doesn't work well for humans. I'm not sure how many degrees of separation that would apply to, or even if it needs to be a specific number - in practice, I don't think anyone wants to bother following the "who bought from who" trails indefinitely. Two or three would probably be enough, though - it just has to be enough to make public pressure for boycotts against B2B products feasible.

How do they come to all agree?

Standards of transparency might need some kind of formal system. I don't know what exactly, but that's not really the hard part of the problem anyway. I was picturing the definition of what counts as an offence working more like cultural norms than a specific standard, though. Which people wouldn't always agree on - if a meat-growing company starts selling "traditionally farmed" factory farm chicken in addition to its' grown chicken, maybe half the population thinks that's bad and starts buying their grown chicken elsewhere, the other half thinks it's fine and keeps doing business with the company, and the company can decide whether having a traditional meats product line is worth loosing half its' other business. Though, the problem with that is that it'd breed companies that specialize in doing business with niches that don't care much about morals, or have very different morals. I'm not sure what to do about that yet, or how big a problem it would be.

Does this only apply to large companies, or to companies of all sizes? The self-employed? Everyone?

There'd need to be some schelling point for company size that allows smaller, younger companies to get started without being so vulnerable to the public. I don't know exactly what that schelling point would be. (Under the current system, having it start at a number of employees, dollar amount of profit, or the owners' degree of insulation from personal liability (sole proprietorship vs. LLC vs. publicly traded) would all be possibilities. But I can't say for sure what it should be in this hypothetical future society, because laws and enforcement of laws and balances of power will have changed a lot.

What stabilises the value of this fiat currency of opprobrium?

I'm not sure what this means. Can you explain?

I tend to agree I don't think this system is very good. I think the transition is going to be outrageous.

I'm not convinced that people need meaningful work-- for a long time, wealthy people seem to have been content to live for the fun of it. I think we're trained to think we need meaningful work.

It's more plausible that people need to think they make a difference to other people, but that's a matter of social and intimate relationships.

Art and relationships (including family and friendships) are the two big places left for fulfillment, that I see. Culture and/or institutions (town governments, media, companies, etc) would have to actively encourage people to do active, constructive things, though, I think - the failure mode where you do nothing but watch TV and play video games all day is probably even easier to fall into in a society where material comfort is easy to get and leaving the house is usually unnecessary. Rewarding people with recognition when they do things that are good for them seems like one way - frequent local contests for things like art, music and cooking so people can get social fulfillment from hobbies more easily.

Which isn't to say it won't be a problem - just that there's stuff people can do about it.