They're the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Of course they're ideological. That's the whole point of their existence.

Anyway,

> Twitter was never a utopia. We've criticized the platform for about as long as it’s been around. Still, Twitter did deserve recognition from time to time for vociferously fighting for its users’ rights. That changed. Musk fired the entire human rights team and laid off staffers in countries where the company previously fought off censorship demands from repressive regimes. Many users left. Today we're joining them.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/eff-leaving-x

Yes, EFF is a civil liberties group and always has been, which makes it a purely ideological movement.

Let's be honest and look at the engagement numbers of the post announcing this:

X post: 124 comments, 79 reblogs, and 337 likes

BlueSky post: 245 comments, 1400 reblogs, and 6.2K likes

Mastodon post: 403 reposts, 458 likes

These numbers, combined with the facts that Mastodon and BlueSky are aligned with internet freedoms while X is strongly aligned against internet freedoms, make for a clear-and-cut case that it's past time to leave the platform.

Well if you look at their bullet points:

- Greater user control how is any of the other platforms they have no problem with any different than twitter?

- Real security improvements where is end to end encryption on all the other social media? And why do they need end to end encryption to broadcast a message to the public?

- Transparent content moderation wait, the EFF is now calling for more censorship?

The first two points are clearly nonsensical, only the third one has at least some logic. Though if the EFF has turned pro-censorship, I am having bad feeling for having given them money in the past.

The reach and impressions on Twitter are fake though, and posts containing links are suppressed.

(Of course the EFF are ideological, that's their entire purpose!)

“Purely moral” would be a more accurate way to put it.

“Ideological” in this context is what you say when you’re trying to deny that there’s moral dimension to the issue. Which you absolutely are.

Just looking over recent posts, the EFF gets more interaction on BlueSky than it does on X despite 1/3 the followers and being on a much smaller site.

I think that says it all.

Their front page says "The leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation for 35 years and counting!"

They are an organization that exists to support an ideological viewpoint. Any political stance is ideological!

Yeah, I'm confused. Why say one thing when you mean another?

Maybe I need to re-evaluate some of the youtube people that I stopped watching because they were so carefully neutral, not wanting to offend the nazis, I thought. Perhaps that's just american culture to try to avoid politics at all cost and I shouldn't view it like they sympathize with that camp?

(To provide context, I'm from the Netherlands. I know we sit, ehm, 'far right' on the honesty spectrum but I hadn't the impression that American culture was very different in that regard, at least if you adjust the scales of pleasantries and exuberism to our usual range, which this EFF post has none of)

Edit: what u/ceejayoz said downthread <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47706961> could be the answer: it is about the numbers, but you have to offset them for how many other people think you're an ass for being there. Nobody thinks you're an ass if you're on Mastodon, you're just posting to whatever server you think fits your niche best, so even if that were only a few thousand views per post then that math might work out to better publicity than ten times as many views and hanging out on X.com

>then say they will still be on BlueSky and Mastodon then you know it's purely ideological.

Both Bluesky and Mastodon are open/federated networks, which aligns more with EFF's values. So, yes, but I don't think for the reasons you're hinting at.

"Open source network that isn't controlled by corporations" is ideological, but not quite in the same way that you seem to be framing this.

can you clarify what the ideology is and how they are not being honest about it

We are talking about EFF. They are essentially an advocacy group, 100% ideological by definition.

It would be dishonest of them to pretend they were not ideological. Staying on Twitter was likely worse for their mission then leaving it.

The article is honest and open about reasons.

What is dishonest is to write as if there was something wrong with leaving twittwr for "ideological" reasons.