I didn't see that in the post. The thesis is pretty clear and aligned with EFF as a non-profit that has to allocate resources strategically:

> To put it bluntly, an X post today receives less than 3% of the views a single tweet delivered seven years ago.

and

> Our presence on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok is not an endorsement. We've spent years exposing how these platforms suppress marginalized voices, enable invasive behavioral advertising, and flag posts about abortion as dangerous. We’ve also taken action in court, in legislatures, and through direct engagement with their staff to push them to change poor policies and practices.

It's pretty clear that all these platforms have various problems within EFF's purview, but the difference with X is that they're not getting value from using it.