I make this assumption because there are plenty of services that can post to multiple social media accounts, and even cross-posting really wouldn't take that much effort- maybe an additional minute per post if you have to log in each time.
They're purposely limiting their reach, and I see no reasoning listed so I assume not everyone there is proud of their "why".
That leaves everyone using it with no non-political options -- there are political implications whether you stay or go.
Leaving it now (when a bunch of others are going too and the front man has recently been dropping bombs) is probably the less political option -- especially in the long term if you think the site is going to get more radical.
Bonus points for moving to a federated alternative, since you can move away from big tech (which is more of a principled stand and/or tactical move than a political statement, IMO.)
This announcement does tell us w3c is a politically motivated org that disagrees with the new regime.
Yes, with the "Musk regime". He often likes to claim that he fights for freedom of speech, but even his authorized biography (from Isaacson) is pretty open about him not having a coherent concept of it, and after the acquisition he reinstated / banned accounts depending on his mood of the day. Musk doesn't like to bind himself by rules, but that turns out to be a pretty important thing for journalism.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38548128
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38548531
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38548342
This looks more like people making views they don't like or agree with invisible rather than the posts breaking specific guidelines.
In addition, flags are generally user imposed. a Mod can flag whatever they desire, but enough users with enough karma can flag a comment, and enough flags will auto-flag until/unless a mod overrules it.
Neither of these are "censorship", even in the colloquial sense. One means someone disagrees with a comment, another means that it doesn't adhere to the spirit of the site.
And most people smart enough to know what the W3C is are also smart enough to know that antisemitism isn't political.
Being on the platform is considered political to some and leaving the platform is considered political to others.
All things considered, I think they did fine by not making a big fuss about it. They don't seem to be looking for pats on the back.
Anyone who is posting just on Twitter is limiting reach. Twitter is closed internet.
W3C posting to open platform is not limiting reach.
And they should feel no obligation to support a private, closed source company.
Please quote the part of W3C's announcement that discusses their political views with regards to Twitter.