TL;DR: No.
I think a good discussion of this would be interesting. Unfortunately the Q&A format here isn't well suited for that, and comments are not the place to have a discussion (contrary to common usage.) To be clear, I am not a mod, on any site. I am a relatively low reputation user on the sites I do use, which is small compared to the whole of the network.) I only have over 1K rep on 5 sites and only 1 of those is over, barely, 5K. I am, however, one of the "curators" mentioned, in an active sense. Any user who raises flags one in a while, even on spam, is curating the site, so odds are you are also a curator. Lastly, I am also on strike. I've raise no flags, made no edits, and done nothing else to curate the sites. I've not even voted on questions and answers outside of the meta sites, and then mostly posts related to the strike, or the company's assorted attempts to spin it their way.
The prior upheaval, where so many moderators resigned, was around the things they were expected to comply with in order to keep doing their volunteer work. Imagine returning to work on a Monday and finding that the company has a set of policies. All employees must arrive at work astride a green color 5-speed bicycle and wearing a purple helmet. All managers are henceforth to be addressed as "Your Lordship" of "Your Ladyship" as appropriate, and the CEO is to be address as "Your Highness." To ensure that all employess comply with this new policy it is required that all employment contract be rewritten to include these conditions. The new contracts are to be signed by the employee as well as signing to acknowledge receipt of the new policy handbook. Any employee not signing the new contract and then for receipt of the manual will be denied access to the building. Thereafter, any employee not in compliance with these conditions is subject to termination. I would speculate that there would be a massive wave of resignations at that company.
Granted, there were some moderators who resigned in protest of how one of there own was treated, and it was, no doubt, a factor for many others who decided to resign. In some cases the mistreatment, and in others the evidence that the company was accepting no compromise. While all the factors for each might be different, or have different amount of influence, the bottom line for the majority was that "I cannot work under those rules."
This situation is completely different. The largest points, of many discussed, is that the newest version, as of this writing anyway, basically prevents the mods from controlling the level and quality of AI generated posts, and that the actual policy they are expected to enforce differs from the one presented to the public, which includes me and all other curators.
In addition, the details of the policies issued directly to moderators differ substantially from the guidelines outlined publicly, with moderators barred from publicly sharing the details.
open letter ¶ 6
The second part is rather troubling in that it requires the mods to either lie, or remain silent when a regular user flags suspected AI policy violations, even under the new rules, which they cannot moderate under the private rules. If I complain on meta that all my AI flags are being ignored, or even denied, the mods cannot tell me "why" and I cannot change my flags to match the rules really in effect. The problem with AI-generated content, in general, is that the sites are designed as a collectin of expert knowledge for other experts to use.
In taking their actions into a strike they are not resigning. The are, actually, still working for the sites and communities they moderate, only at a higher level. They have not said "I'm not working here no more." They are saying "There's this giant elephant in the room and dealing with it will make me too busy to handle flags and other low-level activities."
There is even precedent for that level of work in prior actions initiated by the company. Over the years there have been various times where the moderators have been involved in business-related activities rather than moderation activities. Focus groups, councils, working groups, or what ever other names they have used, have been started and used by SE to work on network-wide policy changes - slightly outside their normal duties as moderators, and even on UI/UX design and options - totally outside their "moderation" duties. The mods who have done those things did not get involved because it was required, or part of their duties, the did so to make the sites better for everyone. Often, getting involved in such projects would mean they would have to take a break from their regular stuff, like handling flags. This time is no different than any other in that regard. They are still working for their sites, trying to make them better, actually trying to keep them from getting worse, but the concept is the same, and have no reason to give up their diamonds, not to have them removed.
Lastly, just to be clear, the mods are not saying that AI is evil, or even bad. Many of the mods use AI at work, and I'd bet there are even some who work in developing LLM professionally. Many of their communities, however, have determined what is, and is not, acceptable for AI-content on their site, and the mods are expected, by the community, to follow what the community has decided, whether they agree with it or not. Part of the strike is that the voice of their community is not being heard and they are unable to follow the community's guidelines because SE has made a global, this or else policy instead. So, again, they are acting for their communities, the users who decided they were worthy to be elected and given the diamonds in the first place.
