I'm really not sure what's so complicated about this.
I have a hard time thinking of legal support EFF has provided that I don't support. If EFF was just legal support, I'd be a donor.
I think their technical work is mostly good; it would be entirely good but for the egregiously terrible Secure Messaging Scorecard --- but hey, that scorecard won me a $1000 bet against Matt Green, so some good came out of it.
Virtually all of EFF's policy advocacy, I find untrustworthy. I don't even believe they take it seriously. I think they play to the crowds, in the hope that the retweets and upvotes will generate more donations.
Is it really that hard for you to see that as a plausible narrative? I'm not asking you to agree with it.
This is an interesting conspiracy theory.
> Is it really that hard for you to see that as a plausible narrative?
My theory is that they really believe in what they're doing. They are based in SF, so they are surrounded by well-funded startups offering high salaries. Employees of EFF could be making small fortunes, and instead they choose to fight to secure civil rights. Why? Because some people value freedom over currency. This narrative seems more plausible.
I'm sure they're all good people who believe in what they're doing. It does not follow that they believe in every individual position they advocate for; they're a nonprofit, so fundraising is a huge part of their job.