If companies don’t actually live up to their promises, we haven’t made an impact. The author pulls together dozens of different sources from inside and outside of the EA community to show that… well, these promises may not be as impactful as they first seemed. But he doesn’t just explain the issue; he also notes the high level of uncertainty around particular facts and figures (providing better information even at the risk of undercutting his “point”) and suggests ways to improve the situation.
Additionally, the author:
Uses our built-in header system to separate sections (I’m repeating myself here, because this is a really useful feature and I strongly encourage authors to use it for anything longer than a page or so).
Proposes improvements that animal charities could make without harshly criticizing those charities (distinguishing between “things could be better” and “things are actively bad” is a good habit).
Points out the ways in which his findings might affect our cost-effectiveness estimates around animal advocacy. Explaining a crucial consideration is good; estimating its impact makes the explanation even better.
This post was awarded an EA Forum Prize; see the prize announcement for more details.
My notes on what I liked about the post, from the announcement: