One is 'put up or shutup' for appeals of moderator decisions.
That is anyone who wishes to appeal needs to also consent to have all their activities on the platform, relevant to the decision, revealed publicly.
It definitely could prevent later accusations of secretiveness or arbitrariness. And it probably would also make users think more in marginal cases before submitting.
If it's only one of them being nasty, then I don't see why some third person would dox the recipient?
And if they do so regardless, they would also get punished for obvious bad behaviour.
There's also a lot of drama around Lyte in his personal life, should you choose to go looking into that.
But there are entire groups of users that not only don't feel shame about their activities, but are proud of them.
These news articles about "platform X censors people with political views Y" are about generating mass outrage from a comparatively small number of moderation decisions. While sure, it would be good for the people who are targeted by those moderation decisions to realize "yeah, ok, you're right, I was being a butthole", I think it's much more important to try to show the reactionary angry mob that things are aboveboard.
* There's some moderation dispute that involves the PM's
* At least one of the parties involved consents to release the PM's
The latter is the critical bit, to me. When you send someone a chat message, or an email, obviously there's nothing actually stopping them from sharing the content of the message with others if they feel that way, either legally or technically. If an aggrieved party wants to share a PM, everyone knows they can do so -- the only question mark is that they may have faked it.
To me the answer here seems obvious: allow users to mark a PM/thread as publicly visible. This doesn't make it more public than it otherwise could be, it just lets other people verify the authenticity, that they're not making shit up.