[warbaker]

I wish this announcement weren't infused with intersectionality.

"Your abortion fund uses TikTok to spread crucial information" is listed as one of three sample reasons you might use social media.

I support reproductive rights! But I don't want EFF to do that, and I don't want EFF to push conservatives out of the movement. I want EFF to appeal to everyone who cares about digital civil liberties, including people who disagree with me on other issues.

[Planktonne]

I think the sort of person who sees any mention of a user having an abortion fund as evidence that the EFF wants "to push conservatives out of the movement" is going to see everything as infused with intersectionality.

You've leapt to such a strong conclusion on the basis of so little evidence.

> I want EFF to appeal to everyone who cares about digital civil liberties, including people who disagree with me on other issues.

An EFF that refuses to use any word that you might one day see as related to intersectionality would not be able to do this.

[warbaker]

I am extremely pro-abortion. I think that "pro life" laws infringe on the basic human right to bodily autonomy, and threaten to criminalize miscarriage.

I am also aware that many people don't agree with me on this issue, but may agree with me on the importance of digital civil liberties.

When listing three example reasonable uses of social media, I feel EFF chose a needlessly divisive example, due the misguided notion that every good organization should support every good cause.

I want religious conservatives to support digital civil liberties, but if we insist on making it a "package deal" with stuff they don't support, we drive them away.

[warbaker]

And downvoted to pieces. HN is such a cool place for dialogue!