I don't think twitter's system for handling the appeal is good (especially because it seems to be horrendously broken - if you have a user base numbering in the millions and need to have a ban appeal process, make sure it actually works so people know what they did wrong).
That said, I also think that the joke the author made was in bad taste and I can easily see why twitter flagged it and temporarily banned his account.
There was no judgment of "taste" at all. This was all automated.
"The Twitter violation algorithm took 3 minutes to detect, flag, lock my account, and send me an email. There is no way a human can read tweets so fast, so it’s a violation detection bot army doing at work. Doing this at scale means all tweets are following some fast regex, and likely, an AI is getting trained and making decisions."
I understand that it was all automated in nature. I was saying that personally I thought it was in bad taste, sorry if I wasn't communicating that correctly :)
If you acknowledge that there was a mindless bot behind this, not a human, and you also admit that you wouldn't ban an account over it, then why say "I can easily see why twitter flagged it and temporarily banned his account"? What kind of work is that statement doing?
That said, I also think that the joke the author made was in bad taste and I can easily see why twitter flagged it and temporarily banned his account.