The SE Inc. staff already knows what makes users leave.
To them, we (who contribute by moderating, flagging, answering, etc) are easily replaced and not much of an important asset.
"Director of Public Q&A" at Stack Exchange Inc. retweeted:
If you’re against CoCs and to protest you’re leaving the community
because the CoC has become more inclusive...
- You identified yourself as part of the problem
- You removed your problematic self from the community
... thank you?
As you can see they know their changes will make many users leave. That's not only acceptable but a reason to be happy about (at least to Sara Ownbey Chipps; the rest of the SE staff avoided commenting for obvious reasons).
Additionally, they deleted the previous heavily downvoted post about the new CoC and replaced it with a post that explicitly prohibits criticizing the new CoC:
debating the core of the new rule ("please use stated pronouns") [...] is off-topic for this post
This allows all dissenting views to be censored as "off-topic".
Also, they avoided posting a high traffic (featured) post about our agreement/disagreement with the new CoC using the pretext of "harming the community".
Time and time again have mods been warned of echo chambers forming on SE sites. Not only did they ignore it, but the tweet above is a recipe for an echo-chamber. Unsurprisingly, this comment comes from Interpersonal Skills (IPS), the biggest echo-chamber I spotted. Can you guess the connection of IPS to the current situation? ;-)
SE had published temporarily a game, where you could vote to: moderate content, flag, upvote, etc. It was a rough approximation of how SE works.
- Lenience and rewards create happiness.
- Moderation creates quality.
Some users are inexperienced or incapable of creating quality content, get downvoted to oblivion and never return. We can fix lack of experience. But we can't fix lack of capability.
So instead of accepting this simple fact, they decided to ignore it. They increased rewards, which effectively reduces the moderation tool availability threshold.
They reduced quality to increase user growth.
On top of that, they didn't care for our feedback or most probably didn't want to see a negative reaction, so they didn't post it on Meta before implementation. They decide. The community obeys.
The worst part is that they don't even see that they are abusing the power our free labor gave them. In their minds, their actions are completely moral. Not a spec of doubt.
They are turning an encyclopedia into a political tool and can't see anything odd about it.