The article you've linked does not specifically advocate deplatforming as I read it.
It begins by questioning when platforms should make the decision to deplatform, and who should have the power to do so:
> When should platforms make these decisions? Is that decision-making power theirs alone?
It implies that deplatforming is ineffectual, as there's no single voice which could be silenced to prevent hate:
> [...] the rampant use of the internet to foment violence and hate, and reinforce white supremacy is about more than any one personality
And it suggests solutions, which you have included in your post, which do not involve deplatforming, they involve transparency. It says, "Changing these dangerous dynamics requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal", which I suppose you could read as advocating deplatforming as well as their proposals if you approach the article with the intent to find that view, but given the context of the rest of the article suggesting that deplatforming doesn't work, it seems more like the author is suggesting that deplatforming be replaced.
It's a pretty wishy-washy article overall, and I think its suggestions are a bit hollow without more specific steps to take, but it appears to go to great lengths to not specifically endorse deplatforming. Reading what they have said as a call for such action, rather than advocating alternative solutions to the issues faced by social media comes off as disingenuous IMO.
