"you cannot be unsuspended until either they agree your appeal is correct (which it is), you give up your appeal (never), and/or delete the offending tweet."
Delete the offending tweet.
Delete the offending tweet.
https://twitter.com/Raddagher/status/1533326201602707458/pho...
Which in this case I think would be a lie. Yes I agree the author should be less prideful and not call Twitter employees "dense" in an appeal. But I don't think the solution is to say the author should lie and say the tweet did break the rules.
Or maybe the rules could be interpreted as "anything that Twitter says breaks the rules does break the rules", meaning it wouldn't be a lie to acknowledge the tweet broke the rules. I haven't analyzed the rules closely.
Say that a video is flagged, user gets the above response and user simply deletes the video. To me it feels like an implicit admission, not having any additional information like "you were right, sorry" or "it is totally incorrect but easier to do this than to fight it".
And say only this metadata is stored, not the video itself, it becomes impossible to judge afterwards.
And say once in a while these logs are reviewed by another party (law enforcement perhaps). Might that be sufficient to end up one some kind of watch list?