To me, I think it's impossible to evaluate those statements in a vacuum and not consider the obvious second-order effects that result from it. Advertising transparency is of course a good thing, but what happens in a culture where perfect transparency exists and one side is repeatedly targeted by activists in Tech, Media, and Finance for deplatforming? Suddenly every advertiser that goes against a narrative can be targeted for elimination. What sounds like a bright and positive message is suddenly a tool for personally going after your political enemies and probably creates even more divisiveness and conflict.
There's a lot wrong with what she said, but especially her opinion that tools should amplify "factual voices" by default. There is no central source of accurate human knowledge to even attempt to do this with and we know that what's considered true and accurate can change. This alone is a disgusting and disqualifying opinion and anybody who espouses this viewpoint should be considered a propagandist and tyrant in waiting and certainly unable to head an organization dedicated to an open Internet.
There's a lot wrong with what she said, but especially her opinion that tools should amplify "factual voices" by default. There is no central source of accurate human knowledge to even attempt to do this with and we know that what's considered true and accurate can change. This alone is a disgusting and disqualifying opinion and anybody who espouses this viewpoint should be considered a propagandist and tyrant in waiting and certainly unable to head an organization dedicated to an open Internet.