My position is quite the opposite: I put the symbol on my LinkedIn profile (and removed it from the URL) and WhatsApp profile.

I never dared to start a discussion about effective giving myself, but thanks to this, people around me started the discussion for me ("Oh, what does this emoji means btw? What's the 10% pledge?"). I've been impressed at how curious, supportive and positive people were, and didn't feel like proselytizing anything while doing so, merely answering their curiosity. And I'm speaking as someone who went as far as hiding my signing the pledge to my non-EA surrounding up until that point.

I don't think anyone one the EA Forum would get interested in effective giving through this, and I actually don't support targeting EAs first -I'd consider it a better outcome if people outside the community see the emoji as opposed as within the community. I think that EA has to be very outward facing, or it will fail.

The default trajectory for animal welfare looks grim, extremely grim, and does not seem about to reach a tipping point anytime soon. I do believe that a pig that shrieks is in pain, and that inflicting this pain is immoral.

I am more uncertain when it comes to tractability. I also favor pluralism and tend to view things with an inner preferential voting system to adjudicate my moral uncertainties.

At least in principle, different species may all be conscious, and all have the same range of capacities for hedonic intensity, but have very differently sized experiences. If so, they ought to be weighted accordingly. We should be indifferent between putting two individuals of a given species in the ice bath and putting one individual of a species that is very similar to the first but whose experiences are twice as large.

(Trigger warning: scenario involving non-hearing humans)
-If I think about a fish vs a fly, this makes some sense.
-If I think about a deaf person vs a hearing person, this starts to make less sense -empirically, I'd wager that there's no difference.
-If I think about a deafblind person vs a hearing-and-sighted person, then my intuition is opposite: I actually care about the deafblind person slightly more, because their tactile phenomenal space has much higher definition than the one of the h.a.s person.

All else being equal, the only thing that matters is the aggregated intensity, no matter the size.

Expanding on this, and less on-topic:
-I've met a lot of people who had preferences over their size of experience (typically, deaf people who want to stay deaf, hearing people who wanted to be deaf, etc)
-Humans with a restricted field of experience seem to experience the rest more intensely. This intensity seems to matter to me.
-I also think that someone who is human-like except with respect to additional senses does not necessarily merit more moral consideration -only if such senses lead them to suffer, but in terms of potential hapiness, it does not move me. 
-I also feel that people with less modalities and a preference over them should be included in an inclusive society, not forced to get the "missing" modalities -much like I'm not interested, at the moment, in additional modalities -such as feeling sexually attracted by animals (it is, after all, something I truly never felt).

I'm confused about how this fares under your perspective, and maybe your answer could help me get back the main distinctions you were trying to do in this article?

Please note that I'm not accusing you of discriminating over modal fields among humans, I'm genuinely curious about the implications of your view. I already wrote a post on something related (my views might have changed on this) and I understand that we disagree, but I'm not sure.

Thanks, I understand more of your background. Just to say, I really appreciate you posting on the forum! Hope I didn't intimidate you, you're absolutely in you're right.

Despite agreeing on the general sentiment, I strongly disagree on the wording and specific arguments brought up. I'm sensing a slight soldier mindset ("only by" , "no matter how", "the core reason we think", "foolishly assuming", "completely wrong", "only if we assume" seem to be a collection of rethorical high confidence markers, including markers about the mental processes of all humans, something I believe should be modelled with utter respect to the highest standards).

My take would have been "should we do value tradeoff or CEV with, and/or respect the boundaries of everything ?". I must say, I'm actually quite open to investigate this view. It comes with challenges -the hardest maximizer usually wins, so sovereignty should be strongly upheld, but then other issues appear. Joe Carlsmith looks like someone who attempted something along those lines (https://www.lesswrong.com/s/BbAvHtorCZqp97X9W).

Yes, I saw it, and have it in mind as well! I'll reach back to you in the not so far future ;)

Hello Mako, thanks for your interest ^^
I'm planning to open a negotiation training module later, probably next year.

I personally agree. I'm a bit on repeat-mode on this, but outside of EA, it's actually very hard to have a productive rational conversation with someone who disagrees with us without relying on storytelling. People tend to reject arguments they view as coming from the opposite side. Stories establish positive rapport and empathy, which subsequently allows more rigorous conversations.

I may get back to you at some point for a collaboration!

Thank you very much for this work, this was a core missing piece in the effort of those of us who are interested in X-risk communication.

I broadly wish we could get to a point where this is applicable, but I'm unsure whether the strategy outlined by the OP is the best one. Although, I'm by no means saying it is exactly comparable, but having experienced it myself, an oppressed minority has no solution but to get transparent about it. If you feel that you belong to a group with a bad reputation, you might experience fear and anxiety when opening up about it.

A small detail I'd add is that, as far as I perceive it, no one actually tries to debunk false ideas and over-generalizations related to EA. When I suggested doing so in the past, a few people actively discouraged me to do it. Some of those false ideas are emotionally hard to bear, others are completely outlandish. What made my coming-out possible, in contrast, was the wealth of ressources and arguments I could throw to people, or just knowing they'll run into them at some point.

This might be caused by us not owning our affiliation.

Yet EA is starting to become a well-identified group, something that people can have clichés about, and who can suffer unfair ostracisation. It's very hard for me to publish my affiliation if I don't feel defended from such downsides. So the circle continues.