Even if it were true, that is not the logic they cite though. They make up a story of the impressions were reduced relative to the platform's old days, not absolute terms; they don't address the cost of tweeting being minimal at all, almost certainly a year of tweeting would be less costly than writing a rant blog post against X. Many brands just autopost everything everywhere for syndication purposes.

So we know why they did it. They wanted to take a stance against X. They just didn't have the balls to say it out loud or the dignity to leave quietly.

I have never seen KKK posts on X. Either you're commenting from personal experience, in which case, wow, who were you following, or you're going off reporting which would seem to be a bit skewed.

Those people would have long left X though so I'm not sure why the existing people would think that. If you're talking about external people judging them about posting there, no one thinks that, like the sibling comment mentions. People will just think at worst that they might need the reach of X so they begrudgingly post there.

Literally nobody that takes this stance around X has or should have political relevancy to begin with though.