Yes.

Coercive control on an individual versus individual level would be much more aggressive in nature compared to the sort of control a society would impose on an individual. The individual that is coercing another would be trying to isolate their victim as their behaviour is generally considered unacceptable by society.

A society imposing coercion would generally be "death by a thousand cuts" type approach. If surrounded by the majority that have been "brainwashed" by the current ideology of that society, that individual that is trying to rebel would be attacked on all sides by that society. A very obvious (if not exactly life threatening) example could be in a school setting where a rebel child may wear clothes that the group defines as unfashionable. Could the resulting confrontation be seen as a form of coercive control? The difference is that this is not a prolonged attack, but what if this rebel continued to wear unfashionable clothes? Until that rebel succumbed to the peer pressure it is likely that they would be continually attacked for their behaviour.

If you replace this frivolous example over fashion sense with say an anti capitalist stance in the USA or an anti government stance in China that individual would be continually corrected by the people around them until they either submitted or at least kept quiet about it.
The attack on all sides from the majority would be very isolating for the individual. But ironically rather than having to isolate their victim it would only strengthen their attack by making their victim mix with others as much as possible (a direct contrast to the coercion of an individual versus individual). The victim would lack of any form of support as their chosen rebellion would be against the majority.

This examination of the topic is in no way an attempt to reduce the importance of addressing coercive control on an individual versus individual level. Any abuse of power of one over another should be stopped. Hence the topic. Society often imposes its own beliefs on the individual, smothering any dissent. The problem is that some controls are necessary for people to live with one another. How do you stop the more harmful coercions of society over the individual? Maybe there is a possibility of creating laws that would protect the individual against this? The introduction of laws to protect one individual from another individual may open the door for this.

This would be exceedingly difficult as society generally favours its own values over the individual's, and seeing as society is the one that creates laws...

What if the person in question has no interest in contributing to society? What if that society was seen as evil according to that person's moral code? That they saw what the majority described as opportunity as merely a form of control and manipulation?

Take the Amish in America as an example. They have found a place in society but only on the fringes. They certainly do not wish to contribute to mainstream American society as they view it as sinful. Fortunately for them, as an organised religion they have been given some leeway to maintain their beliefs within American society. Now let's say there are others on the fringes of society that are not organised in the same way as the Amish but still feel just as strongly that if they were to contribute to society they would be contributing to something that was evil?

No matter how free a society appears there is always an underlying pressure to conform to its conventions. When that pressure puts your existence at stake, say for things that keep you alive such as food and shelter, if that person feels compelled to contribute rather than choosing to, it would be viewed as coercive control by that person

People that do not conform to the norms of society are often sent to prison. What about all those others that do enough to conform to society's norms but only to survive within it rather than as a supporter of it? They have little choice but to work for their life. They can't suddenly just stop and decide that they want to write a symphony or sleep in and rest for a year instead. Society will demand and expect that they continue their work. If they don't conform their ability to financially support themselves is removed and they will be ridiculed and criticized by the majority until they do.

This new coercive control law may be a sign that society as a whole is starting to see control as a more nuanced concept. Rather than something as obvious as holding a gun to your head it can see control in many small manipulative actions. And this in turn may lead to a more nuanced view about coercion by society itself.

If viewed on a practical rather than theoretical level it still means that mass production of animal products would probably be considered unethical by a large section of the population. (If they took the time to look into what happens in factory farming).

If animal products were farmed in what most would consider an ethical way: large areas to roam, no cruelty etcetera then animal products on an "I can eat them every day of the week scale" no longer becomes economically viable. I was looking into this a little and it seems that if enough people were to turn to a plant based diet then the whole factory farming industry would collapse seeing as it is purely an economy of scale. The numbers that have to change aren't even that large. So at this moment in history eating animal products is, in practical terms, synonymous with factory farming and all the cruelty that process entails.

Whichever route you want to take be it animal cruelty, climate change or health, there is, in my opinion, a strong ethical argument for rejecting factory farming of animal products.

Agreed, not a threat, merely a further sign of democracy's decline, its inability to properly evolve with the information age. But even so it is still a foolish move for a country that is a (supposed) champion of the press to so obviously attack a champion of freedom of information. If their intention is to increase the speed of their own decline then "mission accomplished". Any damage done by the collateral murder video is only compounded by this attack on Assange. It is so obvious yet no one in a position of power in any western democracy seems to understand. Not a good sign for the level of intelligence of these leaders.

"...need/want meat and other animal products." Quite a crucial difference. Need or want? If you think humans 'need' to eat animal products to live then you a have much easier time of believing you can eat animal products ethically. But if you just 'want' them and still think animals deserve to be treated with respect rather than just as a commodity to be consumed then not so much.

You don't have to drive a car to survive, you don't have to eat animal products to survive. These are choices that facilitate a more comfortable/easier life.

It's not about being morally superior, it's about facing up to the truth of one's actions. If you wish to continue to eat animal products or drive a car or buy products made by sweat shop workers yet believe these things are wrong then you are doing something unethical. None of these things are necessary for humans to live. (Although even something that may be essential to survival could still be considered unethical).

If however you believe these actions are not in any way egregious/bad, then you are not being unethical if you perpetuate them.

Leading an ethical life is not a simple endeavour. The more intelligent and thoughtful you are the more complex living an ethical life will become. But I think it is important to constantly examine one's own actions and be as happy as possible about them if you intend to do so.

The arrest of Assange is just another nail in the coffin of democracy. The only way democracy can function is with a strong and free press. It is a basic tenet of democracy that freedom of the press can help repair any problems that occur through corrupt government. Like when a state shoots journalists from miles away and then tries to cover it up. Without a strong and free press democracy is going to destroy itself.

Bye bye democracy. You used to be cool. Now you're all like lame and old and stupid. Hello totalitarianism. Oh noes you suck even worse than old and lame democracy...

Yes it is unethical if your ethics include the idea that you should not be cruel to animals.

If you believe it is ethical to torture animals as such behaviour gives you pleasure or perhaps it makes you feel pleasure to kick your dog when you have had a bad day at work then eating factory meat products is ethical (for you).

If however you think being cruel to animals is wrong then eating factory farmed animal products is ethically wrong. Any other answer is merely self deception so as to allay feelings of guilt so animal products can continue to be consumed.

(Off topic but related) I would take this further and say eating any meat or animal products is ethically wrong if you accept that climate change is real (and that you wish to prevent this change) considering the impact that an animal based diet has on climate.

The ease with which you can change your diet considering the amount of information available online in terms of nutrition means that anyone who thinks being cruel to animals is wrong and yet still eats meat or drinks milk or eats eggs (no matter what the source, factory or "free range") is merely choosing to satisfy their desires over their abhorrence of animal cruelty.

Ultimately, when humans are faced with a binary choice most will choose their own comfort over anothers. Even though many may shy away from personally killing countless male baby chickens in an industrial sized blender so they can enjoy an omelette they will accept that others will do so on their behalf as long as they don't have to hear too much about the way the eggs were "broken" so they could eat that omelette. In other words humans are the type of animal that likes eating sausages but are not the type that wants to know how the sausages were made or what goes into it.

Destruction is another word for death and pretty much everyone is deathly afraid of death which means destruction = bad. Hey I feel ya, your argument has some sense to it. But in the end the fear of death will mean most will see destruction as bad. In a similar vein to your original premise, why do we use the words good and bad? Some people's bad is good to other people and vice versa. We are simple beings who like babies and fear death. Thus creation = good, destruction = bad. But yes if we all were more wise then maybe we would see these aspects as different sides of the same coin. The ancient yin yang view of the world and a bunch of other ancient philosophies about the universe look at destruction in a much less negative way so there's that...

What if your disagreement with the other person is not based on the idea that the other has made a mistake but is a search for an answer? This could be a conscious search or more likely unconcious. The very act of interaction is a search for information, conflict could be seen as a more aggressive search. Why do philosophers, scientists, theologians or anyone searching for an answer of some kind engage with other people? To find an answer, to see if others can either support their idea or dispute it. Could the most obstinate person with the most obstinate argument perhaps be convinced otherwise if a certain counter argument is used or is their obstinacy just a part of their personality which no argument could ever counter? Are their interactions an attempt to correct other people's mistakes or is it an unconscious search for an answer?

This is the way I look for truth. I will argue my case attempting to counter the opposing view. My views will either
/be reinforced by the other person's inability to pose a counter argument that I find logically disputes my premise or by their agreement through my convincing them
or
/will be defeated by a better argument
or
/my premise may be left in a state of flux leading me to try and come up with a better premise.

All these outcomes are valuable to me. The "mistakes" made by other people if a premise remains disputed is their lack of logically countering my argument.

What about a more practical look at an argument for antinatalism that could work for you?
I don't think such a philosophy would ever be strong enough to convince every human to stop having babies right? But it would stop the people that believe not having babies is the right thing to do thus removing them from the gene pool. Boom, problem solved.
So in fact you should probably be trying to promote antinatalism to get any people unsure of their stance to make sure you get rid of as many people as possible that are not into being baby makers.
It's a long term win. Everyone will be happy.

Boom.