As a brief point in support: This strike isn't just for mods. There tends to be a lot of focus on the moderators, especially for StackOverflow. The strike organizers are occasionally a bit self-important about that, though I don't think our mods for Academia.SE are.
I think this point has been made, but is particularly true here. Upvoting and downvoting are, absent other policies, the primary way the entire SE platform is designed to deal with whether an answer is semantically correct or incorrect. Upvotes are easier to cast than downvotes, however. There are good reasons why the privileges have been set up this way.
As the current status quo without additional AI related policies sits, we are not supposed to close syntactically reasonable questions that are nevertheless semantically incorrect unless they fulfill fairly strict semantic criteria (advertisement, plagiarism, or offensive/harmful content as per the code of conduct).
We experience some negative side effects of these policies here with some frequency, especially with the Hot Network Questions queue. We're a small, relatively slow Stack. Syntactically reasonable but semantically incorrect answers are simply very hard for us to collectively bury with downvotes. Furthermore, that kind of aggressive policy strikes me as at least if not more unwelcoming than an extremely rare and appeal-able suspension justified by our current (by company fiat, unenforceable) AI content policy.
I think these conditions are worth emphasizing alongside the original question's, and make the strike particularly worthwhile for Academia.SE. We are a small Stack doing our level best to cultivate a usable Q&A framework for largely non-technical questions. A local policy is a particularly obvious solution for us, and particularly low impact for the rest of network.
