Well, we are not exactly 'organised'—a lot is being done off site on SE's request and knowledge of the strike is word of mouth. There's also moderators who support the goals of the strike, but are not striking.
So can this be interpreted as the majority of moderators do not support the strike?
It means a significant number of moderators are not striking. However, several sites, such as Stack Overflow and Super User, have fairly high numbers of moderators striking. There's a distinction between 'not striking' and 'do not support the strike'.
Or they chose not to voice their support out of for fear of reprisal
Stack Exchange hasn't threatened us with reprisals of any sort.
If most moderators do not see the merit of the strike, why should any other persons take them seriously?
Well—without the strike, it would have been a quiet, internal dispute and chances that this and other changes could have been railroaded over us.
We have press coverage as part of other issues.
There are many references to our strike in the article, but this is especially important:
"This is the same complaint identified by Stack Overflow’s mods: that AI-generated misinformation is insidious because it’s often invisible. It’s fluent but not grounded in real-world experience, and so it takes time and expertise to unpick. If machine-generated content supplants human authorship, it would be hard—impossible, even—to fully map the damage."
People should take it seriously, because it affects the quality of the content here—and broadly the usefulness of the Internet. People should take us seriously, because it’s the right thing to do for the long term good of the network and of the Internet.
Do people not learn anything from Reddit blackouts?
That a company can be toxic, and try to bully moderators into doing what they feel is best for their bottom line, even if the community is hurt? And folks finding creative ways to get around it?
It’s a great object lesson on how to rapidly get bad media coverage and mess up badly.
It’s a lesson that good community relations is good business and trying to force a community to do your will is a little like trying to catch a clowder of greased cats that don't want to be caught.
That there's been more than one blackout, and they're trying the route of trying to crush the resistance of the very people who provide value to the site to changes that adversely affect the site by removing community volunteers who've put time and effort into their communities... yeah, people really are not learning anything from these things.
You can't write/run community software without a community.