@fidodo@lemm.ee @glacier@lemmy.blahaj.zone @calm.like.a.bomb

I did read the article. All of you are cherry-picking the transparency aspect and are ignoring the whole spirit of the article in the first place.

She is saying, deplatforming is just not enough, we need to do something so that Donald Trump and people like him didn't even have a chance to speak. She is not only defending deplatforming people but she's saying deplatforming doesn't go far enough.

We must cut their funding by going after their advertisers. The "transparency of platform algorithms" is basically to make sure that the voices Mitchell Baker thinks are wrong should not be amplified. She is asking for the amplification of "facts" i.e., what she thinks are facts.

I don't think anyone who wants to argue in good faith can read that article and come out with the assumption that she's asking for more transparency.

The transparency part is so that she can see and demonize people who support speech she doesn't support. The main spirit of the "deplatforming is just not enough, we need more" and the fact that you took away the transparency part (which isn't what you make it to be in the first place) while completely ignoring the We need more than deplatforming part is surprising.

The CEO of mozilla is asking for Censorship, plain and simple. I don't think that's very free speech, not very true to ideology behind FF and an open internet.

I am a conservative (an old school liberal) and I would have defended the left had this happened against someone like Biden or his supporters, if someone had called him a black supremacist or something. But, when the shoe is on the other foot, people like you are very comfortable turning a blind eye and when given an article asking for censorship commenting that she wants more "transparency"