He was suspended for not doing what mods asked him to do.
They asked him to change behavior around all those things you mention, but based on his account and the mods’ account it seems they agree that the suspension happened after Srid said that he’d only obey the mods if they did something he wanted (i.e., turn the things he was being asked to do into universal rules that they would prosecute against everyone equally).
The moderator team has authority. If authorities only asked you to do things that you were willing to do out of your own desire, there would be no need for them. It follows that under some circumstances an authority can be expected to ask people to do things that they don’t agree with. If people treat such requests as optional, or the opening to some sort of negotiation, again the moderators are not really doing anything special—any one of us can make a not-backed-by-power appeal to someone else in the community.
If you agree that moderators should exist and do something that makes them different from other members of a community, it therefore follows that you should expect those moderators to occasionally ask people to do things that those people don’t agree with, and that those people should comply or face the consequences.
If that sounds horribly authoritarian to you—it is authoritarian! Authority is the governance model we have. Want to start a constitutional democracy with separation of powers and legislation and judicial review and all that good stuff? Write the constitution and get the community to agree to it, or start your own community with that as a founding document and see who joins you. That’s massively difficult work, but it’s something you could do.
If you think you are willing to put up with authoritarian governance but think that the authorities made the wrong call in suspending Srid after he failed to comply with their requests, I say you don’t understand authoritarian governance.
And if you think that the authorities should not have asked Srid what they did, at last there is a concrete topic of conversation that I think might be productive. It’s not about what he was suspended for. It’s not about oversight, transparency, or accountability. And it’s definitely not about ‘keeping politics out of tech’ or any such nonsense. It’s about your politics not agreeing with the mods’ politics on this specific issue, and whether you can convince other humans to change their politics to align more closely with yours (or, perhaps, be open to being convinced to change your politics to align more closely with theirs, if that’s not too rich of a fantasy to entertain).