Lemmy.World sounds like another conversation worth having. Feel free to assemble your references and post that as well - probably somewhere other than Lemmy.World:-). I for one don't know enough about it.

Also, the linked OP wasn't merely about sth along the lines of "Lemmy.ml being tankies" (anyone at all who is on the Fediverse is surely a tankie according to some, like conservatives on Truth Social:-P), it was rather more about abusive moderation practices. It sounds like you think you have a strong case to make against Lemmy.World similarly, but definitely find as solid proof as you can to prove it to others who will refuse to spend anywhere close to as much time on it as you have & will.

Still further, the linked OP wasn't even just about abusive practices, but by ones that look deceptive, by virtue of hiding (not necessarily intentionally, fwiw) them in the database edits, and being done by instance admins rather than just mods of the communities. If your case against Lemmy.World is rather about the latter, that greatly reduces its overall applicability to the Fediverse, though in that case you would want to appeal to the admins to remove those mods? (unless they are the same people?)

Worst of all, this issue with Lemmy.ml was eminently solvable: there are other instances that people can shift over to, which instantly solves it for them. But finding mods of such a high-profile and contentious community among our still fairly small user community base... may prove difficult. Especially when those people may receive literal death threats. So I am saying: you might not get as strong a response as you hope, having little to do with the content, and more to do with the psychology of people not wanting to put in actual effort to solve problems. Even so, your conscience will rest easy b/c you told people. And you may need to tell them again months later.

Lastly, I hope it is obvious that Lemmy.World doing bad things in no way shape or form excuses Lemmy.ml from doing far worse things. Especially if you didn't even get banned, but merely censored. Not that that makes it alright, just that the vehemence of the linked OP made the situation much more noticeably obvious, whereas a more subtle pattern of discrimination may be harder to prove?