How do you know EPIC isn’t for sale? They don’t disclose who their donors are.

What do you mean, "who their donors are?" What is missing from their CharityNavigator?

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...

They're a 501(c)3, they take donations off the front page of their website. Sure, you might be curious who is donating? Or if there are any donations over a certain amount? I don't see any of that for The March of Dimes, either, do we question whether they are "for sale?"

I agree that "for sale" isn't a fair descriptor, of the March of Dimes or EPIC or the EFF. That was mostly my point.

I think it's reasonable to ask some number of questions about the March of Dimes. It's surprising, at least a little bit, that eradicating polio didn't reduce the amount of charitable work a polio charity had to do.

Because I'm aware of their history and the positions they've taken on privacy issues. They've always been the actual pro-privacy group, unlike the others which represent tech industry interests.

The EFF, popular with many tech workers, also falls into the latter group. They've started to pivot post all the privacy scandals of the past few years, but in general they've taken positions that align with the tech industry. There's a reason why they've been preoccupied with government surveillance but have been silent (until recently) about corporate surveillance.

How do you know EPIC isn’t representing the interests of its own donors? I don’t think you’re applying a consistent standard here.

I was mainly attacking those think tanks for providing air cover for tech industry interests. I'm sure there are actual examples of tech companies also donating to EPIC, as well as employees of tech companies.

The irony