> The article link appropriately disqualifies itself of not being partisan
Where does EFF call itself non-partisan, and how is that relevant to Twitter's/X's violations of privacy? Definitions of partisan include [1]:
> An adherent to a party or faction.
> A fervent, sometimes militant, supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
By the second definition and arguably by the first as well, EFF is fundamentally a partisan organization [2]:
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world.
"Reach" was only ever one reason EFF stopped posting on X. Among yet other reasons, EFF had partisan reasons for leaving X [3]:
> Twitter was never a utopia. We've criticized the platform for about as long as it’s been around. Still, Twitter did deserve recognition from time to time for vociferously fighting for its users’ rights. That changed. Musk fired the entire human rights team and laid off staffers in countries where the company previously fought off censorship demands from repressive regimes.
Lots of words to say nothing. Obviously the original mission statement of EFF has been bipartisan, turning against Musk and by that turning a lot more anti-freedom of speech and anti-liberty has soiled their image.
Them continuing on such extremely partisan platforms like Truth Social for the left (BlueSky) just makes them unsupportable. Which is something I'd thought I'd never say, but that's the world we live in. Where champions of justice get attacked, and censorious hate mills get even officially boosted.
Just read your own arguments. X bad because it fires a team they'd never needed to have as a social media company just to stay afloat, especially as it was proven that those firings were tacitly necessary for the platform to survive?
>"previously" fought off censorship demands
This just proves you're either uninformed or lying on purpose. The furor with which Musk pushed Brazil and De Moraes to not censor people on X was awe-inspiring. Something the old Twitter never managed to do in such scale.
> Them continuing on such extremely partisan platforms like Truth Social for the left (BlueSky)
Especially but not exclusively due to the fact that whatever "censorship" Bluesky imposes can be avoided with different clients in most cases and different PDSs in worst cases, I'm not going to pretend that Bluesky and Truth Social are anywhere near the same in terms of speech diversity [1] (aside: nor will I pretend that X has more speech diversity than Bluesky). (In the context of this post and thread, I use "censorship" to mean a company's own moderation and censorship to mean speech restrictions backed by government coercion/threats.)
> X bad because it fires a team they'd never needed to have as a social media company just to stay afloat, especially as it was proven that those firings were tacitly necessary for the platform to survive?
By "proven" "tacitly necessary", I assume you mean proven in hindsight, to which I disagree. You're arguing that after Musk bought the company it had to fire its anti-censorship team [2] to "fix" its money situation ($13 billion debt that banks ended up reselling instead of collecting from Twitter/Musk), even though before Musk bought the company it could have continued on with its anti-censorship team for years without losing $13 billion. You're also arguing that post-buyout Twitter is better because sometimes getting revenue may matter more than fighting censorship (which I don't necessarily disagree with), while pre-buyout Twitter was foolish for more heavily prioritizing fighting censorship over getting revenue. (Aside: Musk launched a frivolous lawsuit against advertisers that was bad for both getting revenue and fighting censorship [3].)
> The furor with which Musk pushed Brazil and De Moraes to not censor people on X was awe-inspiring. Something the old Twitter never managed to do in such scale.
Holding the record for most government censorship demands resisted in one incident, does not make up for overall acquiescing more often to censorship demands [4] or for reducing the company's ability to resist censorship demands [2].
Where does EFF call itself non-partisan, and how is that relevant to Twitter's/X's violations of privacy? Definitions of partisan include [1]:
> An adherent to a party or faction.
> A fervent, sometimes militant, supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
By the second definition and arguably by the first as well, EFF is fundamentally a partisan organization [2]:
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world.
"Reach" was only ever one reason EFF stopped posting on X. Among yet other reasons, EFF had partisan reasons for leaving X [3]:
> Twitter was never a utopia. We've criticized the platform for about as long as it’s been around. Still, Twitter did deserve recognition from time to time for vociferously fighting for its users’ rights. That changed. Musk fired the entire human rights team and laid off staffers in countries where the company previously fought off censorship demands from repressive regimes.
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/partisan
[2] https://www.eff.org/about
[3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/eff-leaving-x