vegan > not vegan

In South Africa, I refuse to buy (vegan) margarine. It contains palm oil, whereas our own butter is locally farmed in the Eastern Cape. TLDR: I've been on said dairy farms and it's way better for me to buy that butter than the (vegan) alternatives that contain palm oil.

The second issue I have is that they seem to have a book advertisement section.

Apart from that, there seem to be useful links there.

Palm oil is a similar issue. It was supposed to be very environmentally friendly, but it's not if they're cutting down rain forests to grow it. Direct knowledge of where it comes from still beats having the right names and certifications; if that's all that matters, companies will cut corners to tap into that market.

Indeed a similar topic. Many people don't realise that "organic" is a marketing term. You cannot equate it with "ethical" or anything of the like from a terminology point of view. It (organic farming) has formal definitions in the countries where the products are sold and these are not always sensible or honest.

"All Natural" is a marketing term... "Organic" labeled foods are certified and (in the US) must meet specific requirements set by the USDA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

I would agree that the GMO component seems overblown, but this also includes controls that protect the environment (reduced pesticides, reduced antibiotic use, more specific dumping regulations) and keeping better audit trails.

You may be surprised by how many people think Organic == pesticide free, for example.

I think there are a few ways to do this e.g.:

1) multiple certifications as mentioned above;

2) brand recognition / brand responsibility (the analogy is myself with the South African butter); and an option that I have suggested which amounts to

3) an/multiple environmental quotient(s) that would score higher if you have a nature reserve on the farm, use less pesticides, use compost, etc.

But, unfortunately, unless you are remarkably well informed on all the suppliers, you simply can't always know. There is an app in France that tries to do this, but I am sure that also opens the door to corruption. In the next 10 years I expect to see more such apps.

I had the pleasure of being in an organic vegetable co-op in Oregon, it's such a great idea wish it was easier to access in California.

[1] - https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2015/earth-balance-switch...

Unfortunately one can also perhaps justifiably say:

eat insects > eating vegan > ...

And that makes it all the less romantic. Ideology to me has some merits, but I personally prefer to attempt to optimise at each point (including the meat production pointset).

EDIT: The Netherlands is setting some precedent towards this, especially for animals and improving their surrounds.

Creating and maintaining a web browser is not simple, Firefox is the freeest usable browser.

Brave deprives the website owner of income by blocking or replacing ads while at the same time pushing the website owner to sign up to Brave's rewards program, which Brave generates income from, instead of ads for funding.

Monetization models are even less clear. What if I'd prefer to not pay with cash?

If you find your own strawmen "petty" I suggest you try to think more clearly. It would likely improve the quality of your HN comments.

A good example of such a reversal elsewhere in this thread is the "local butter better than imported vegan margarine made from palm oil grown in clear-cut rainforests" argument.

Personally, I extend that argument further, mostly for health reasons, but I'm not vegan.

When I see articles that don’t interest me, I close the tab, don’t go post contrarian comments to the originating forum, and then get on with my day. This technique has worked well for me over the years, you might give it a shot.

The post is about a website declaring that some software is more “ethical” than others. They offer no real criterion as to what constitutes “ethical”. The burden of proof lies with the publishers and those that fully support the notion. “Go away” neither helps or positively affects others views.

But is that not clear? The ethics of the person who made that list. You may not agree with it, and that's fine, but it's still useful to people who do agree with these ethics, or even with just some of them.

I do agree it'd be better if they offered some explanation about the basis of their selection, which would make it easier for people to determine if they agree with it or not, and it would certainly form a better starting point to discuss these ethics and suggest improvements. That they didn't include that explanation is absolutely very valid criticism.

But ultimately, if you don't agree with it, then this selection is not going to be relevant for you, is it?