Because when people write manifestos, they are often trying to convince the reader that they are highly intelligent more than they are trying to plainly explain themselves. They are usually a product of mania.

Gemini simplified it to this:

"Algorithmic Sabotage" is a new idea about tech rebellion and fighting bad technology. It's not against tech itself, but about people pushing back together.
It wants to break down profit-driven power in the online world, help us do what's right, and stop computer rules from controlling too much. This is a political stand, not just a tech one, rooted in fairness for everyone, everyone being treated the same, and people helping each other. It goes against how tech makes things unfair and gives some too much control. It's all about groups of people managing bad tech and building a different, collective way of thinking through art and action.
For example, it could mean making artificial intelligence act unexpectedly or looking at how tech is used to create misleading appearances or exert influence.

This particular OP rather than suffering from mania is suspiciously bot-like. It's the second account I encounter in a few days whose posts and comments seem ever so slightly off - in this case it's just the completely random stuff they post and an uncanny and distanced way of commenting.

I'm a bit dismayed that I now have to make an effort to distinguish real people from bots and that if I block those I find suspicious it includes the risk of blocking some real people who are just having a weird way of expressing themselves.

Okay thanks, though I wish you hadn't used AI. I'm fiercely against AI, which is why I voiced my disappointment that a cause I stand behind is obfuscated by pseudo-radical word salad.

Anyway I don't believe OP wrote the manifesto themselves, so my criticism is most likely not arriving at the right address anyways.

I remember someone in a copaganda show once saying something along the lines of “whenever someone writes a manifesto, it’s either insane ramblings, or pseudo-intellectual ramblings full of big words that they picked out of a thesaurus and misused.” And sure enough, every single time I’ve seen a manifesto, it neatly fits into one of those two categories.

Isn’t it just precision?

Not if you could express it in a more accessible way without loss of meaning, and especially not if you claim to want a broader public to opt into your cause. Mostly it's smartassery. I understand that there's situations where you want to speak about scientific topics and need specific terminology for precision, but this is definitely not it.

I’m not sure I always buy into the idea that precision is bad and broadly accessible is good. Not in this era of anti-intellectualism at least.

But I definitely see your point, if you are talking about making things accessible. Vague claims of “they just want to sound smart” smell of anti-intellectualism to me.

It is ironic to run a manifesto against AI through an AI. Definitely not what the author intended

Is this really that precise? Reading through these 10 points, many of them seem quite vague to me.
Phrases like:

[. . .] a structural renewal of a wider movement for social autonomy [. . .]

or

[ . . .] emancipatory defence [sic] of the need for communal constraint of harmful technology [. . .]

could mean a million different things, for example.