What are you even arguing here? The link corroborates that both RFA and CDT are part of the NED. Is your gripe that they use a different acronym? Propaganda from a geopolitical rival is obviously not a reliable source of information. Though it's true, the website doesn't make it very clear that the NED is part of the USA government or CIA, I didn't think that information was necessary to provide because it's common knowledge. But I can quote Wikipedia again in case you didn't know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy

The NED was created as a bipartisan, private, non-profit corporation, and in turn acts as a grant-making foundation.[2] It is funded primarily by an annual allocation from the U.S. Congress.[4][6][5]

I generally prefer first hand sources so here's a cia.gov source corroborating their control of RFA. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000846953.pdf But if you prefer, here is an article by an American journalist explaining the relation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/09/22/innocence-abroad-the-new-world-of-spyless-coups/92bb989a-de6e-4bb8-99b9-462c76b59a16/ For example

Preparing the ground for last month's triumph of overt action was a network of overt operatives who during the last 10 years have quietly been changing the rules of international politics. They have been doing in public what the CIA used to do in private

So then it comes down to you believing Mediafactchecker's vetting to be more reliable than an organisation's stated goal. So who's mediafactchecker? The website looks very amateurish. What resources do they have for verifying these news stories? Because the link you provided says they haven't reported any fake news in 5 years as far as the site is aware. But that's insane. They have stories like this. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/korea/squidgame-11232021180155.html
Squid Game is extremely popular on Korean Soulseek and it's in no way covert.
Or like this https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/philanthropist-11212018131511.html
He's alive enough to take interviews. https://youtu.be/scScu7rcwnI
RFAs reporting is so painfully fictitious that Mediafactchecker simply can't have done their due diligence. The examples they give are not original reporting, so in those cases it's completely fair to give them a pass. Most likely, Mediafactchecker simply reviewed only the cases they link and nothing else. In my opinion, this means Mediafactchecker is itself unreliable since it creates profiles for sites without looking through a large number of articles.

Chinese citizens are not allowed to use a VPN, unless government has approved it in some way.

Then quote some legislation or evidence.

Onto the article you linked with the racist cartoon. This is an ad for VPN providers. It says China bans VPNs except for their partners, and then links to affiliate purchase links from big popular partner products, popular enough that China definitely would know about them. The article is explicitly aimed at selling products to tourists, not Chinese people. The article also lists blocked sites without actually checking if they're blocked. Not relevant to the core argument, because China does block the majority of western big tech and propaganda, but it shows that it's not a very high effort blog post.

http://www.chinafirewalltest.com/?siteurl=x.com
http://www.chinafirewalltest.com/?siteurl=wsj.org

In summery, this is not a source, because there's no evidence of original reporting or an effort at fact finding.