Sort of? For an individual, there's obviously a ton of personal factors that play a role in decision-making. For an organisation with a stated mission, though, I should expect them to make their decisions based on what best aligns with said mission, or another set of priorities they're bound to follow. This is important for knowing if one should support the organisation and if their values are aligned. How can one trust an organisation which only ever claims to fight for Y, but then in practice randomly throws Z, W, and U into the mix, as they feel like it?

As I wrote, the content they criticise X for is the kind of content I recall them being much more indifferent about in the past, so seeing this come up as their main reason for leaving this platform, with no indication of any internal re-evaluation of priorities having happened, is rather out of the blue.

> The very first sentence in the article starts with "Since Elon Musk..."

… and goes on to tell us they have been monitoring it; found it increasingly hostile; that they originally joined to interact with people, promote free software and alternative networks; that the platform feeds hatred, polarisation and sensationalism and grows privacy concerns; and finally that they're leaving.

> What part of this would you have liked them to be more upfront about?

What they suddenly have a problem with and why. As I said, what they actually wrote doesn't add up to this for me. Hostile environment, misinformation, harassment? They didn't seem to care much or see it as hindering their mission before. Hatred, polarisation, sensationalism? Same thing, and it doesn't necessarily hinder their activity on the network. Data protection, privacy concerns? The network has always been non-free, for-profit and centralised. Interacting with people and promoting free software? You literally can still do that.

They say why they originally came, but those reasons are still valid today. They say what they dislike about their platform, but it's either irrelevant to their mission or they haven't disliked it so much before. So what they say does not explain their decision. It doesn't explain the logic behind it. Trying to use it as an explanation doesn't really make sense with their supposed mission.

I can only guess the actual logic is more like 'we have other values we care about more now, which the platform now goes against, and in our current political climate we want to more noticeably stand at the "right side" and gain favour with our primary audience over there'. This, for example, could be a sensible explanation. But they chose not to give one.