This is a worthwhile idea, and I very much hope for it to be successful.

As I think about the idea, I wonder about the risk of backlash. I noticed your comment about how AI models have incorporated many values of the SF-area. Remember when there was a backlash against "woke" models (e.g., https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68412620 )?

It makes me wonder how we can get to a sentient-centric AI that doesn't create backlash by producing analogous results that the typical person would find outlandish, but which an anti-speciesist vegan wouldn't. Do social and AI changes have to happen in lockstep? Or at least without one getting too far ahead of the other? I'm unsure.

Thank you for sharing so many thoughts. I encourage you to push further, and I'm intersted in talking or collaborating as well. I have been involved in different types of direct advocacy in the past and have been most active in recent years as a donor - primarily to groups I believe may move animal product alternatives forward and which are being overlooked by other donors.

One thing I've been curious about is whether doing explicit moral education is useful and in what mode. Animal Ethics is the group that comes to mind that seems to be doing the most of this, and most closely aligned with abolitionism. I mean, they seem to be delivering moral arguments at various levels - from academic to the street - and in different modes. My assumption is that helping to spread simply put, common sense arguments for animal rights will an important and necessary part of moving to abolition.

"My contributions in this section are to point out that as morally driven (and charity funded) advocates, our comparative advantage is to emphasise the moral arguments, and this could be more effective anyway."

I think this is spot-on, and I agree that moral advocacy is very much neglected.

My suggestion would be to have no process other than general social  sanctions. I don't think it makes sense to make any person or entity an authority over "effective altruism" any more than it would make sense to name a particular person or entity an authority over the appropriate use of "Christian" or "utilitarian".

I believe you're introducing a new kind of connection when you talk about usage of the heart-in-lightbulb image. I couldn't tell you who originally produced that image, but I assume it was connected to CEA. I agree that using an image with strong associations with a particular organization that created it might morally require someone to check in with the organization even if the image wasn't copyrighted.

I believe effective altruism benefits strongly from the push and pull of different thinkers and organizations as they debate its meaning and what's effective. Some stuff people do will seem obviously incongruous with the concept and in such cases it makes sense for people to express social disapproval (as has been done in the past).

Even if you think you have a good reason to use EA in your marketing, you should still get CEA's permission first.

I strongly disagree with the idea that CEA (or any person or entity) should have that kind of ownership over "effective altruism". It's not a brand, but a concept whose boundaries are negotiated by a wide variety of actors.

"I lead the Israeli community of Women in Data Science" and videos in Hebrew.  :-)

I'm not sure if you live in Israel - just seeing signs suggesting it on your website - but have you contacted The Modern Agriculture Foundation (https://www.modern-agriculture.org/)? I know they're in touch with many companies locally and may have ideas about funding locally as well.

If there were cost-efficient leverage points, it might be worth investing some amount of money and effort in.

A non-exhaustive list of semi-conjoint reasons:

• One believes abortion is a grave moral wrong and a lot occur each year.
• One doesn't believe abortion is a grave moral wrong, but assigns some weight to the view's correctness. Even assigning a 10% chance to the view's correctness still means a lot is potentially at stake.
• There might be relatively easy ways to make a difference and have other positive, follow-on effects. For example, male contraceptives might make a big difference in reducing unintended pregnancies and my understanding (a few years old) is that there aren't many funders of relevant research. (I recognize that some people argue that the follow-on effects of other contraceptives like the pill are not fully positive and some believe they may even be negative.)
• Abortion is ridiculously polarizing and seems to crowd out discussion of other important issues in politics. Maybe reducing its salience would help increase the ability to focus on other issues?
• Obtaining an abortion imposes greater and greater costs in the US (financially, in time required, psychologically, health risks) as restrictions are rolled out.
• The strategies engaged in by many pro-life advocates seem unlikely to significantly reduce abortion rates.

> Another possibility is that the industry is simply run into the ground through costly welfare reforms and competition through alternatives. Maybe this wouldn't remove all animal exploitation, and some animal products would still be demanded as a luxury good, but it would seem pretty significant if the reform path way could bring us that far, would you agree?

I agree that would be significant. I suppose I remain skeptical that costly welfare reforms are realistic and will go very far.

Thanks for explaining your points further. I appreciate the exchange!