I personally haven't updated too much based off this example, as I suspect this model works better in Norway than it would elsewhere.

Nothing specific. It just seems like it would make sense for them to write an explanation of why they're doing this.

I'm a bit more skeptical, but this sounds fascinating. Would love to hear more.

I haven't made a list of existing projects yet, but I hope to do this at some point. 

EA used to lean more into moral arguments/criticism back in the day, but most folks, even those who were part of the movement back in the day, seem to have leaned away from this.

It's hard to say why exactly, but being confrontational is unpleasant and it's not clear that it was actually more effective. OGTutzauer makes a good point that a movement trying to raise donations has more incentive to leverage guilt, whilst a movement trying to shift people's careers has more incentive to focus on being appealing to be part of.

It might also be partly due to the influence of rationalist culture norms, whilst Moral Ambition seems to have been influenced by both EA and progressivism. (My experience has been that the animal welfare folks, who tend to lean more into progressivism, are most likely to lean into confrontationalism).

Sometimes the dollar signs can blind someone and cause them not to consider obvious alternatives. And they will feel that they made the decision for reasons other than the money, but the money nonetheless caused the cognitive distortion that ultimately led to the decision.

I'm not claiming that this happened here. I don't have any way of really knowing. But it's certainly suspicious. And I don't think anything is gained by pretending that it's not.

I bet the strategic analysis for Mechanize being a good choice (net-positive and positive relative to alternatives) is paper-thin, even given his rough world view.