Shouldn't it be straightforward to prove that Eksi Sozluk lacks "meaningful moderation"? Shouldn't it be a requirement for such a drastic action like banning the whole web site?

Twitter produces orders of magnitude more disinformation in volume, amplified way faster and way broader too, yet they don't get any ban from Turkey whatsoever. How do you explain this kind of double standard?

If I were the Turkish government I would never even do the favour by banning the site, cause that draws attention the site doesn't deserve. I dont care if it's most visited site whatever, it's just useless.

Also, i think every logical person can see that its much much easier to provide a single example of a lack of moderation than it is nebulous "prove you have moderation". What kind of standard do you have for that and how do we know you're not going to shift the goalpost the moment they bring you what you ask for. An example is an example is an example. Provide your proof or cease accusations. I've seen this argument many times in my country, always used to shut down free expression and enforce repression. There's great books and videos on logical fallacies out there

Either you like authoritarian governments or you have it in for this website (or both?)

No other popular social platform has this level of transparency. Not Twitter, not Reddit, not Facebook. How did they prove they have moderation to Turkish government? How do they not get banned?

Do you know?

Do you want to know?

Do you care about what's right or fair, or do you just believe in something and want to justify your beliefs in whatever means necessary?