One of his complaints is they clearly don't know what the hell is going on in Pakistan and this is a root cause of their mishandling of things.
It is a completely reasonable criticism.
The request for Twitter to help in this case only makes sense if it assumed it will be taken by moderators living outside of Pakistan, who don't have to fear government reprisal for their actions.
"I'm sorry, Pakistan, if you can't behave better, we will have no choice but to evacuate our local offices full of relatively well paid jobs and take our toys and go home. Feel free to explain that to your people however you so wish."
Money talks.
They could do something akin to what McDonald's did for the beef industry. It adopted Temple Grandin's list of best practices as its standard and this got adopted by the beef industry because McDonald's buys so much beef.
Currently, these big companies typically have a predatory relationship to such countries, so such countries have no motivation to cooperate. Make them trade partners and things begin to change.
Second of all, Twitter is a bit player in media. Comparing it to McDonald's is absurd. If we were talking about Facebook, this may be a different matter.
Third of all, government relation to media is significantly different to government's relationship to beef. There is no government in the world that wants a bad beef industry, but many many governments that actively want a biased media industry, and are more than willing to sacrifice monetary concerns to achieve this goal. Countries much smaller (at least in population) than Pakistan have actively kicked out platforms like Twitter - see Russia for example.
I will say it again: it is not realistic to expect a foreign media platform to fight government propaganda inside an authoritarian country. Twitter is not the BBC or Reuters, and even those places don't often try to publish in authoritarian countries.
In this case, the guy with the problem is living outside of the country in question. He would still have access to Twitter but the people causing him problems potentially wouldn't.
My personal background includes a parent who grew up in Germany during WW2 and its aftermath, a parent who was a two-time decorated veteran and an ex boyfriend whose political activism cost him 3 years in prison in his youth. He was questioned under torture.
It's other people who insist that is unrealistic to whom I have replied "If they can't handle the task, they do have the option to simply leave this market instead of making excuses about how they have no choice but to go along with (various bad things)."
I'm not impressed with such excuses. A business located outside of a country with serious problems of this sort is not required to operate in that market. If they choose to, they should make an effort to make moderating policies that reasonably account for the fact that people there have issues not commonly seen in someplace like the US.
I'm just talking on a forum on a Sunday afternoon.
Also, what is the equivalent to Temple Grandin's list for moderation of social media?
I don't personally think Twitter should be expected to go against the official government narrative of any country they operate in, for what it shows inside that country. Not that it would be immoral to do so, but I find it an entirely unrealistic expectation - Twitter is not the BBC.