Seeing a lot of people (rightly?) be up in arms about the @firstname.lastname@example.org's stance on Kiwifarms.
I will say that the situation has more subtlety and complexity than it seems on the surface, so while I won't condemn anyone for coming down on these folks for their arguably questionable stance, you should at least read their position statement on the topic.
My take? I think their argument contradicts itself.
They claim that ISPs should not become a choke point for censoring the internet because tier 1 ISPs represent a monopoly.
The monopoly aspect is true, but in the world we live in today ISPs are the ONLY mechanism we have for ensuring that content a vast swath of society finds morally repugnant can be removed.
What we really need (and what I maintain their argument is actually tilting towards) is for large ISPs to be regulated like utilities, and for their to be clear guidelines under the law for content that's beyond the pale and needs to GO AWAY.
It's a thorny one to be sure. I still love and support the EFF, but in this case I think they picked the wrong horse.