If you take the words at face value, sure. But there’s more to it:
“Changing these dangerous dynamics requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors from social media platforms.” (emphasis mine)
So at a baseline, they’re advocating silencing “bad actors.” Who are these bad actors? Mitchell Baker doesn’t specify.
“Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted.”
While this seems “more transparent” on its face, it’s aimed at making it easier to target advertisers for conservative programs. There are many examples (1), (2), (3) of this, and there are entire organizations (for example, Media Matters and Sleeping Giants) dedicated to targeting advertisers in an attempt to shut down conservative shows and organizations by depriving them of funding.
“Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact.”
Again, at face value, this is just making more knowledge available, and more knowledge is better, right? But it leads to
“Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.”
And there it is. The important questions here are, what counts as a factual voice? And what counts as disinformation? We can get an idea of what Baker considers a “factual voice” by following the link in the quote. The link leads to an article by the New York Times saying that Facebook has rolled back a change to its news feed algorithm that prioritized certain publishers (CNN, NPR, and the New York Times are named) and deprioritized others (Breitbart and Occupy Democrats are named). So, while “factual voices” and “disinformation” may remain vague terms that I won’t attempt to define specifically in Mozilla’s place, the gist is that Mozilla would like to see specific publishers permanently favored over others.
“Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things.”
More vague wording. What does “improve things” mean? Again, I won’t presume to speak for Mozilla, but it seems safe to propose that its meaning falls in line with the other things called for in this article, including silencing people they don’t like, making it easier to go after someone’s advertisers, and carefully choose which news gets shown to people and which news gets buried.