[scarab92]

They still get more engagement on X than on Bluesky.

Also, cross positing the same content on multiple platforms isn’t time consuming.

This is clearly EFF violating their stated commitment to political neutrality, and providing only a superficial and easily discredited rationale for cover.

[conception]

Do we have to be politically neutral to the abhorrent?

[Levitz]

Probably not, but then go ahead and say it.

The problem is they can't really say it, because if their stance is that Musk's management deserves such rejection, then they are cutting their nose to spite their face, and if the abhorrent ones are X users in general, they show themselves to be only on one side of the aisle, removing any legitimacy to their principles.

[watwut]

They went ahead and said it. Literally. And remained completely legitimate.

The problem is that people ignore what they said, so that they can argue made up "illegitimacy".

[sublinear]

Yes. Even though I agree with a lot of what the EFF does, this is a valid reason to be skeptical of intent.

[unclebucknasty]

>They still get more engagement on X than on Bluesky.

Is this the right metric? Or would having 98% of their impressions lopped off by the platform factor in? What if they were 100% suppressed? Would it still be "political" for them to leave? If not, then what's the threshhold?

And, if the platform is suppressing them, then isn't it the platform that's playing politics? How are they absolved, and why should EFF stick around to give them its imprimatur of legitimacy / neutrality?

[theshrike79]

So if they're politically neutral, should they have an account on Truth Social too in your opinion?

[denkmoon]

Should they not? I can’t see why truth social users shouldn’t be a target for EFF’s message