This might sound like a no-true Scotsman, but ACE is not widely respected by Effective Animal Advocates—as catalysed by the thread you link. Likewise, ACE publicly distances itself from EA. This is common knowledge for EA’s that operate in this space.
This is news to me and is a significant positive update, thanks very much for sharing.
I notice that two of the three animal funds listed on the GWWC page (which is also the EA funds page? I’m not quite sure of the distinction) are managed by ACE. Perhaps this is not so common knowledge among the non-EAA people who run that infrastructure?
I’m not fully following things, but my understanding was this was about right a couple years ago but isn’t any longer? Since that controversy, ACE has had a lot of leadership turnover including a new executive director and research director. And in their first Forum post in over a year:
As an EA organization dedicated to transparency and intellectual rigor, we would like to take it a step further and interact more closely with the community that shares these values.
Compare to, around the time they (which was a pretty different group of people at the time) stopped engaging:
We have declined to include our perspective here. The most time-consuming part of our commitment to Representation, Equity, and Inclusion has been responding to hostile communications in the EA community about the topic, such as this one. We prefer to use our time and generously donated funds towards our core programs. Therefore, we will not be engaging any further in this thread.
I don’t want to take your word for it, but if this is true I think it would reflect well on EAAs. I’d love to hear more about the internal reaction.
EDIT: I misread this as “catalyzed by the thread [Elizabeth] linked”, and realize now you probably meant “catalyzed by the thread [in the comment you were directly replying to]”
I assume that’s not what Elizabeth was talking about though, given the lack of relation to nutrition, so I’m still not sure if her comment about punishment is reasonable in this context.
Less relevant but I also think the ACE example is slightly different as it was penalising charities for views that they disagree with, rather than investigating questions it doesn’t like.
(FWIW I also think ACE has changed sufficiently since that incident that I think it’s unlikely to happen again, but who knows)
I think ACE’s attempt to get speakers removed from conferences and penalize charities based on their dissent to ACE’s BLM views probably counts. (Though this example is not nutrition based).
This might sound like a no-true Scotsman, but ACE is not widely respected by Effective Animal Advocates—as catalysed by the thread you link. Likewise, ACE publicly distances itself from EA. This is common knowledge for EA’s that operate in this space.
This is news to me and is a significant positive update, thanks very much for sharing.
I notice that two of the three animal funds listed on the GWWC page (which is also the EA funds page? I’m not quite sure of the distinction) are managed by ACE. Perhaps this is not so common knowledge among the non-EAA people who run that infrastructure?
I’m not fully following things, but my understanding was this was about right a couple years ago but isn’t any longer? Since that controversy, ACE has had a lot of leadership turnover including a new executive director and research director. And in their first Forum post in over a year:
Compare to, around the time they (which was a pretty different group of people at the time) stopped engaging:
ACE is largely different people now than it was a few years ago, and I talked to them a lot when I was in the space as recently as June.
I don’t want to take your word for it, but if this is true I think it would reflect well on EAAs. I’d love to hear more about the internal reaction.
EDIT: I misread this as “catalyzed by the thread [Elizabeth] linked”, and realize now you probably meant “catalyzed by the thread [in the comment you were directly replying to]”
I assume that’s not what Elizabeth was talking about though, given the lack of relation to nutrition, so I’m still not sure if her comment about punishment is reasonable in this context.
Less relevant but I also think the ACE example is slightly different as it was penalising charities for views that they disagree with, rather than investigating questions it doesn’t like.
(FWIW I also think ACE has changed sufficiently since that incident that I think it’s unlikely to happen again, but who knows)