Looking at ads and introducing ads into your environment is not free, it's mildly harmful. If you offered me 1 cent per ad to display ads in my browser, I would refuse. The money going to charity doesn't change that.
LessWrong has a sidebar which makes the link to All Posts much more prominent; it looks like EA Forum hasn't adopted that yet, but it would probably help.
Were you under the impression that I was disagreeing with the sodium-reduction guidelines because I was merely unaware that they existed? This is an area of considerable controversy.
Quitting smoking, alcohol, salt, and sugar is also hard–they are quite addictive.
For most people, cutting salt intake is harmful, not helpful. Salt isn't new to human diets, and it isn't a matter of addiction; it's just a necessary nutrient.
Sugar can be harmful, but only insofar as it crowds out other calorie sources which are better. When people try to cut sugar, they often fail (and mildly harm themselves) because they neglect to replace it.
Post-mortem donation is fine, but being asked to sign up for kidney donation would be severely trust-destroying for me.
This happens to posts by accounts which have never posted before; established accounts (at least one post or comment) don't have to wait. This was instituted on both LW and EA Forum because of a steady stream of bot-generated spam.
That doesn't seem especially relevant to the question of whether first-world consumers should buy farmed or wild-caught fish; the amount caught form fisheries is set by regulations, not by demand, so consumer demand does not, on the margin, increase or decrease overfishing.
I doubt this makes a difference. Most of the market treats farmed and wild-caught fish as close substitutes, the supply of wild-caught fish is inelastic, and the supply of farmed fish is highly elastic. So if you switch from farmed to wild-caught fish, you are probably affecting market prices in a way which causes one other person to make the opposite change.
There are three additional premises required here. The first is that your own use of funds from investments must be significantly better than that of of other shareholders of the companies you invest in. The second is that the growth rate of the companies you invest in must exceed the rate at which the marginal cost of doing good increases, due to low-hanging fruit getting picked and due to lost opportunities for compounding. The third is that the growth potential of AI companies isn't already priced in, in a way that reduces your expected returns to be no better than index funds.
The first of these premises is probably true. The second is probably false. The third is definitely false.