What users care about is not getting downvoted for reasonable questions, not seeing everything closed as duplicate even though the other answer is 10 years old and contains only/mostly outdated and bad answers, ...

This is what is is actually hurting SO.

Do you think that moderators just chat on meta? That users do not know about how moderators work doesnt mean that they do not work.

Remove the moderators, or downgrade them to some automated process and the user experience will change. Moderators do not only talk on meta with each other.

If SO wants more control over moderation practices, it should start paying moderators.

Incidentally I also think that a better/smarter voting system combined with less moderation could be good for the platform (note: not no moderation) .

Anil Dash?

This is the post Joel Spolsky posted, breaking the user rules that stated among other things that political posts where not allowed:

https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/297859/can-stack-ov...

Then, a couple of years later -

https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342440/time-to-take...

at the same time Sam Altman posted his (since I mentioned Y Combinator, but in fairness, at his own blog):

https://blog.samaltman.com/time-to-take-a-stand

These are political, ideological driven posts. Not everyone agrees with the political content; the point being, whether you do or not, this doesn't belong on a site such as SO.

And the international agenda I am refering to is in particular United Nations' agenda 2030 which is also rooted in ideology, and is what these companies are working with, directly or indirectly:

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingo...

> international agenda I am referring to is in particular United Nations' agenda 2030

This is conspiracist nonsense, attributing a bottom-up progressive movement to a top-down international organisation that actually isn't progressive at all (and is in fact dangerous to certain activists).

WWII and the invention of the atom bomb convinced (almost) everyone that major powers should talk rather than fighting one another head-on. That's why the UN exists.

Where were these rules? I've never seen such prohibition.

> "Bigotry of any kind. Language likely to offend or alienate individuals or groups based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. will not be tolerated. At all. (Those are just a few examples; when in doubt, just don't.)"

"etc." => politics, in this case back-ref "Language likely to offend or alienate individuals or groups" as not everyone agrees with the political message(s) posted, and the use of the platform users signed up on for entirely different purposes.