[smoovb]

>The math hasn’t worked out for a while now.

Have the costs to post to X grown too high? The salary of someone with the technical know-how to work the social media platform is too expensive? How does the math compare with Mastodon? Do you know about buffer.com?

I started giving to EFF about 10 years ago. It's pretty much the first and only organization I have regularly given to. It always felt like a non-political organization focused squarely on the right to access. Especially with its support of the Tor project. But this news has me confused and other commenters seem to be seeing virtue signaling or politically motivation.

[localuser13]

>I started giving to EFF about 10 years ago. It's pretty much the first and only organization I have regularly given to.

I'm in the same boat - not 10 years, but regularly, and a significant amount of money (for me).

I'm a bit confused now. Their post is absolutely not convincing (for the reasons you outlined - tweeting does not cost anything, and despite what they say they clearly get a lot of outreach there). I think I'll evaluate their achievements with more scrutiny before my next yearly donation.

[busterarm]

Most people don't look at the Board of Directors.

And while I respect everyone on it for their achievements, from their own bios and other political work they're involved in you can clearly tell which stated goal is in service of another.

I've met and spoken to at least half of them and...yeah.

John Gilmore is gone. Brad Templeton is gone. John Perry Barlow is dead. The civil libertarian bent that the organization began with is long gone.

EFF is a Ship of Theseus like any other.

[wyclif]

Your first sentence is key. Most people don't look behind the green curtain, but it's often where you find who the really important people in the org are.

[Redoubts]

There was a recent leadership change at the EFF

[WatchDog]

It's always been political, but it used to be non-partisan.

[squigz]

Since when was the EFF "non-political"?

[globular-toast]

I believe "non-political" to Americans means not participating in the blue/red thing.

[traderj0e]

Right. "Non-partisan" might be a better way to put it, but that can also be misinterpreted as officially connected to a party.

[Freedumbs]

Using Twitter in 2026 is a political statement. I don't consume it, but using Twitter would be supporting right wing extremism (or whatever you classify Musk as).

[localuser13]

Maybe, but this is not what they claim in their post. Their official reason is that the numbers are not working out.

And even if that was the reason, that doesn't make sense. They're an activist organisation, their goal is to promote their ideas to people that need to hear them, and twitter users need that more than bluesky users.

Btw. I login to twitter once every few months to share my blog post or report. That's not a political statement.

[Freedumbs]

I replied to a comment, not EFF. EFF is doing the correct thing, but very late. I'm not advocating for one platform over another.

It is indirectly a political statement to use Twitter. You are supporting Elon Musk who has made himself a central figure in extreme right wing political views.

[traderj0e]

There are tons of famous people on Twitter who I'm pretty sure are not doing it as a statement of Musk alignment. There's not really any other place they'd be.

[Freedumbs]

It's my opinion that the most powerful weapon consumers have is the power to vote with your time and money. Using Twitter is voting to support Elon Musk whether intentional or not.

[traderj0e]

Yes it is. The people using Twitter despite this aren't doing it intentionally to support Musk, but it does help him.