I also recommend reading Natalia's answers to Elizabeth's posts, both here and on LessWrong (you need to scroll down a bit there) instead of just reading the post uncritically.^[1]

I didn't get the sense that Natalia's epistemics were poorer than commenters in other cause areas, but I did get the sense that the evidence base available is weaker.

Regarding this post, as a non-expert I wouldn't be shocked if shrimp stunning and slaughter interventions turned out to be less valuable than we currently think, as it's such a new field and shrimp seem hard to study.
But for cage-free campaigns there's been a lof of research, analysis, and debate in EA for more than 5 years. My sense is that people studying these things have many reasons to believe that these interventions are very likely to be net positive (and are deeply aware of the significant downsides of cage-free systems, they just have compelling arguments for why the upsides compensate for those)^[2]

I also don't think there's much pressure by donors/volunteers/employees to invest in cage free campaigns compared to things like vegan advocacy, or promotion of plant-based defaults in schools/hospitals/workplaces. If anything I'd guess the opposite, and that senior people pushing for cage-free interventions really do it because of the data (and of course tractability)

1. ^{^}

   But I do think most EAs should get their ferritin levels tested: low iron impacts productivity, EAs are uniquely likely to be lacto-vegetarian, which according to Gemini is "one of the most difficult dietary patterns for maintaining adequate iron levels", and 80mg equivalent iron tablets are very cheap

2. ^{^}

   But it does seem that the actual estimated marginal cost-effectiveness numbers could be very different from what's often claimed

I was about to write a very similar comment.

Concretely and practically, if the EA environment is unusually predatory, I should warn women I know against applying to jobs in EA or attending EA groups/events, or at least inform them that they would be at risk.

If the EA community is safer then the counterfactual (for which country-level base rates are a reasonable default) then I shouldn't (if only because doing so would put them at more risk.)

So this would be a decision-relevant thing to know about, but as you mention I'm not sure it's tractable to get this information.

Thank you for sharing your experience, and I'm really sorry you had to experience this.

Writing the below not as a response to you, but for other readers.

(1) each instance felt minor, (2) it felt like reporting would be more trouble than it was worth (time-consuming, burdensome), and (3) I want to maintain relationships with some of these people. [...] (4) it was not clear to me (at the time, and in some cases, even now) that certain behaviors were inappropriate

I recently reported a minor concern to the community health team and it was surprisingly straightforward, they have a form here: https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/community-health/contact-us with a text field and everything else is optional

CEA has been investing between 5 and 7 FTEs (including fairly senior ones) for years in their community health team, which is several million dollars in salaries and opportunity costs, so my sense is that they really value these reports. The page starts with:

Please have a low bar for getting in touch. We welcome small pieces of information, even if you’re not sure they warrant us taking action. Often people are worried that their issue is too minor to tell us, but we’re glad they shared it. We can likely still be helpful, and it’s useful information that could help us spot patterns of problems in the community."

That said, for me it was possible to report things anonymously, I realize that's not always the case.

1-on-1s where the other person seemed to only want to talk about personal matters

I also had this happen several times, and while it was never flirtatious or anything close to harassment, the first time I found it really frustrating, and I wish there was a stronger norm about being clear if you're requesting a social 1-1 instead of a professional/impact-focused 1-1

Love this post, I think this framing can really help with engagement and retention, and to turn supporters into advocates, especially in the animal rights movement where so many people burn out or struggle to stay involved.

A small nitpick:

Celebrities who have never been previously particularly active on animal rights (e.g. Dave Portnoy, Ricky Gervais)

Dave Portnoy donated and fundraised hundreds of thousands of dollars for dog shelters.

Ricky Gervais is even vegan and has been very active on animal rights, especially dogs. He recently donated 2.5 million pounds to animal charities, and has been advocating against animal testing on beagles for a long time.

My impression is that the animal rights movement has been very successful in terms of celebrity endorsements, I'm surprised that I haven's seen much of it for EA-style welfarist work (e.g. cage-free campaigns) and I wonder if there could be some opportunities there.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/G5TwJ9BGxcgh5DsmQ/yes-requires-the-possibility-of-no 

Interesting. Could you point to anyone in EA who does not agree with the additive view and works in this field?

I agree with you, as do most people outside of EA, but I believe almost everyone in EA working on these topics disagrees

simulating the same wonderful experience a billion times certainly isn't a billion times greater than simulating it once

My sense is that most people in EA working on these topics disagree.

See also https://www.alignmentforum.org/w/super-beneficiaries which seems really similar to this post

Google Docs natively supports exporting, importing, copying and pasting as Markdown

Use Markdown in Google Docs, Slides, & Drawings - Google Docs Editors Help https://support.google.com/docs/answer/12014036?hl=en#zippy=%2Cexport-a-google-doc-as-markdown