> The problem is that would give users actual power and autonomy. But what the authors really want is for Google and other corporations to keep acting as inter

> The problem is that would give users actual power and autonomy. But what the authors really want is for Google and other corporations to keep acting as internet police, but only enforcing rules they agree with, and not any others. That's why they want to build "civil rights" into products, and not "user freedom". That's why they get comments from an establishment Harvard professor, and not the FSF. There's a strong authoritarian zeitgeist built into the identity politics proposals of papers like the WP. It's been like this for years - stories about "hate online" and "what are corporations going to do about it." Proposals around racial justice always end up with laws to compel something from someone. The goals might be benign, but they should follow principles that we've already agreed by consensus as a society / culture rather than via compulsion and radical 'rethinks'. The obsession of the last few years with regulating 'misinformation' and 'hate' online should be a big red flag here.