The article link appropriately disqualifies itself of not being partisan by the fact of the article explicitly having links to share it on multiple semi-dead platforms but not X. X, which they left with arguments about "reach" which don't pass half a smell test. Hope EFF digs itself out of the mud it finds itself in today in the future.
> 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…
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.