I think EFF should look for improvements to their communication on this topic. They need to be providing much more practical leadership guidance.
The ideological goals don't need compromise -- but the practical reality is that our society _needs_ an organization like EFF to be at the forefront on these topics -- advocating for better abstractions to help shape how we as a society should think and deal with these complex issues. EFF shouldn't be effectively silencing itself by becoming a voice that just repeats platitudes. This article to me felt like the right wing response to gun violence events "we send our thoughts and prayers but let's not politicize this tragedy".
In particular -- there are simple ways to avoid worry over the "slippery slope" associated with defining policies that apply different rules to different users -- you can espouse policy frameworks that are explicitly parameterized by impact (impact is a bit fuzzy to capture in truth but conceptually clear -- and simple proxies suffice to communicate the concept -- in most cases the number of followers is a reasonably close conceptual proxy for a social network).
If you have 70 million followers and you say "let's punish immigrants" it's just simply a different thing than if you say the same thing and you have 10 followers -- pretending there "must not exist" a different framework for responding to events that occur on such vastly different scales is not practical and it's actually a failure to provide good advice here on an ideological level -- because we _know_ that these events are different and project meaningfully different risk profiles onto the world.
There is not a clear ideological reason to falsely pretend that "the same thing" is happening when two users with such vastly different impact publish the exact same sequence of words ... The threat model for "danger of communication" is based on impact and so should be the policy frameworks aimed at managing these risks.