| ▲ | anonymousiam 3 hours ago |
| I left EFF last year. I was a top-tier donor for 20 years, but EFF has changed from neutral rights-focused activism into questionable political activism. Leaving X is just another example of it. Would EFF be leaving X if Elon had not taken over? Does EFF actually believe that there's more free speech on Facebook? |
|
| ▲ | quaverquaver 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| X is a rare platform where an individual manipulates the algorithm per his own personal political whims. And, yes he is explicitly racist and anti-democratic. No org that cares about freedom should contribute to what is really a personal effort to commandeer the information environment. |
| |
|
| ▲ | lynndotpy 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is hard to someone has been giving EFF >=$1000 a year, every year, for the past 20 years, who also did not consider EFF to be engaging in political activism for 19 of those years. |
|
| ▲ | latexr 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > changed from neutral rights-focused activism into questionable political activism. What exactly are “neutral rights”? Every right is political, and none of them are neutral, you’ll always find someone who supports them and someone who opposes them. Remember when Nestlé’s CEO said that calling water a human right was an “extreme” opinion? And there used to be a time when people claimed owning slaves was their right. What you are calling “questionable” right now is just something you don’t agree with. I have a feeling history will support EFF’s position over yours. > Would EFF be leaving X if Elon had not taken over? That’s like asking “would activists fight for your rights if no one was violating them”. I mean, no, but that doesn’t say anything. Had Twitter not have been sold but they eventually did the same things Elon did, then the EFF would probably have left just the same. Had Elon taken over but not done what he did, they probably wouldn’t have. The EFF is not on a personal vendetta, this is about the service as it is right now. |
| |
| ▲ | ThrowawayTestr 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >What exactly are “neutral rights”? Rights that apply to people even if you disagree with them, like free speech. Something both the left and the right seem to hate. | | |
| ▲ | latexr 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Rights that apply to people even if you disagree with them That is true of every right. A right that doesn’t apply when you disagree isn’t a right. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kevincrane 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just to clarify, until recently you were under the impression that the political advocacy organization you donated to had no political opinions of their own? |
| |
| ▲ | loeg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | GP is complaining about a shift from one set of positions to a different set. | | |
| ▲ | anonymousiam 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | GP (me) is not complaining about shifting positions. EFF was fairly neutral for the prior two decades, and even though I did not agree with everything they did, I thought they were worthy of support. Last year, they began filing some lawsuits without much research or diligence, and without much of a legal basis. I waited a while and watched, and I saw them becoming more and more partisan. I liked it when they were more about defending rights and less about attacking the "right." | | |
| ▲ | ethanrutherford 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | the EFF didn't move from political neutral. The right just moved more right. | |
| ▲ | loeg 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > not complaining about shifting positions > EFF has changed > EFF was fairly neutral ... Last year, they began ... I saw them becoming more and more partisan I mean, I read that as a shift. | | |
| ▲ | anonymousiam 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Read it as you wish. I would have been just as displeased if they had swung "right" instead of "left." |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | feature20260213 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | contagiousflow 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You think the EFF was not political before 2024? | |
| ▲ | mghackerlady 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | TDS/EDS don't exist, it's called not liking fascists and not supporting them any more than you have to because they directly oppose your goals | | |
| ▲ | feature20260213 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | mghackerlady 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | ad hominem.
but whatever, lets suppose trump and elon aren't fascists.
what exactly do fascists do? Oppression of minorities? Check Capitalism as the main apparatus of the state? Check Imprisoning dissenting voices? Check Creating lists of people to get rid of? Check Authoritarianism? Double check Creating an out group and scapegoating it as an "enemy from within" Check if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it doesn't have to scream it's a duck and sieg heil to be sure it's probably a duck or at least not a swan | | |
| ▲ | feature20260213 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Putting check next baseless claims? Priceless. For everything else, there's MasterCard. | |
| ▲ | feature20260213 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The saddest part is you slop up this propaganda and repeat it so confidently. What dissenting voices are being imprisoned? What the fuck does "Capitalism as the main apparatus of the state" even mean? Sorry you have freedom as a consumer as opposed to the violence of the state? What minorities are being oppressed? How? What lists of people exist to get rid of? | | |
| ▲ | vharuck an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | >What dissenting voices are being imprisoned? There have been a lot of political prosecutions of people who disagree. James Comey, Leticia James, John Bolton, Mark Kelly. Luckily, grand juries and judges have prevented them from getting convictions. But dragging them through the legal process is punishment enough. The administration's incompetence at imprisoning political opponents isn't a reason to forgive them. ICE has targeted protestors, and Rubio made it clear the targeting was intentional policy. If we look beyond "imprisonment" and include "illegally or unfairly punish dissenting voices to keep them from having a voice," there are a lot more victims. Jimmy Kimmel, reporters at the Pentagon, openly supporting an ally's takeover of Warner Brothers to control CNN. | |
| ▲ | mghackerlady 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >What dissenting voices are being imprisoned? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_government_attacks... >what the fuck does "Capitalism as the main apparatus of the state" It means the states de-facto purpose is to funnel wealth into the hands of a few people (trump and elon included) >What minorities are being oppressed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_transgender_peo... >what list of people exist to get rid of ICE presumably has several |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | mghackerlady 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They're leaving because the platform because of a combination of not enough real people and elon turning it into a nazi hellscape. The visibility isn't worth the hit to brand reputation which makes sense if you recognise liberty as intersectional |
|
| ▲ | contagiousflow 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I can't believe such a nonpolitical organization would do this!!! Come on, you either have to be lying or you were never paying attention. https://www.eff.org/press/releases/activists-sue-san-francis...
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-activists-demonstrate...
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/media-alert-eff-argues-ag...
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/law-enforcement-use-face-...
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/trumps-blocking-people-hi...
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/comprehensive-legal-refor... |
|
| ▲ | benlivengood 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The EFF has always been against a large political segment, namely the status quo of "long-term intellectual property good, DRM good, businesses have the right to do whatever they want with data they collect, businesses have the right to arbitrarily use de-facto monopolies on computing platforms" which make no mistake were never neutral positions about rights. |
|
| ▲ | blurbleblurble 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | anonymousiam 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Please elaborate. What political views did I express or advocate, other than free speech? |
|
|
| ▲ | bitwize 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People who fight for individual rights kinda have a problem with Nazis. Big freaking surprise. |
|
| ▲ | dbingham 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| In a two party world where one of those parties has been captured by a fascist movement, there is no "political neutrality". You're either pro-fascist or anti-fascist. And if you care about rights at all, including free speech, then the correct alignment is anti-fascist. And yes, this is a US centric comment. The EFF is a US based organization and the center of gravity of the tech world they deal with is in the US. |