Why would EFF phrase it this way? Do we really need to make policy debates into wars? This sort of gloating is not useful. Google did not make this decision. People inside Google, subject to the same biases and ego defense mechanisms as anyone else in the world, made this decision. If you really want people to resist you at every turn, by all means, taunt people for agreeing with you.
The EFF raises money through gloating about the good they do. If they didn't trumpet their successes people wouldn't see the value. Frankly, Google was forced to make this decision by people like danah boyd, poor press, and a bad position in the market. They aren't doing this based on any moral reason but because their position was unsustainable for logical reasons.
I believe that when companies make terrible decisions, organizations like the EFF should shame them, because it sets the standard for the future.
It's called "nymwars" because ... that's what it's been called. If online communities had a more Muslim bent, it might have been a jihad, whatever. It was a struggle between ideologies over resources, and that's fundamentally what a war is.
"Google" made this decision and by all appearances (see Eric Schmidt's "identity service" comments) at the very most senior levels.
It seems rather polarizing. Instead of coming to an agreement through thought and evidence based argument, calling things "wars" seems to suggest one should pick a side and stick with it.
Promoting an opinion based on ideology alone is dangerous.
