There is no problem with any individual who participates in EA discloses when they post or comment on the EA Forum that they are not speaking on behalf of their employer. Yet if the number of people from one organization making that disclosure keep increasing in a discussion, the value of those disclosures decreases. To take it to an absurd degree, the executive directors of EA-affiliated organizations would not be taken as seriously if they always disclosed they weren't speaking on behalf of their organization whenever they expressed an opinion.

Maybe I'm really dumb, or have debilitating ADHD, but I found this post incredibly difficult to read.

This might be caused by the numerous clauses in each of the three sentences above, and that they contain something that looks like "double negatives". 

But also I think there's something confusing about the underlying ideas too?

See:

To take it to an absurd degree, the executive directors of EA-affiliated organizations would not be taken as seriously if they always disclosed they weren't speaking on behalf of their organization whenever they expressed an opinion.

Translating this, I think this sentence above is saying (I had to read this 5 times to figure this out): "If EDs always disclosed they were speaking independently,  they wouldn't be taken seriously." 

But how does this relate to the rest of the question—isn't this observation counter to the idea of demanding clearer disclosures?

As a writer, I thought you would want to know, in case other people also share my limited reading comprehension abilities.