Some events in past months seem to show that some people and organizations in the Effective Altruism network have (or previously had) some harmful attitudes, bad motivations, or reckless approaches to decision making. But this doesn't do much to shake my support of EA as a whole.
At the end of the day, I support it for the same type of reason I support the Democratic party in the US. It's a coalition that has problems, but it gets important things done and much better aligns with working toward the kind of world I want to live in than alternatives. Like any 'ism' with significant following and influence, there are bad nodes and edges in the network. But I think the best approach to supporting institutions is to be pragmatic, not purist. Institutional support shouldn't be attire.
But I still really hope that EA takes away a message about fixing these problems. None of them should be excused, and all of them are harmful toward EA's goals of doing good things in the world.
It's complicated because effective altruism is an institution, as are the organizations in it you're referencing. Yet those organizations are indeed also nodes in the effective altruism movement as a system. Ultimately, failing all else, those nodes could be replaced. The institution of effective altruism could survive without them.