Exactly how is it an exaggeration? I cannot fathom how anyone can not interpret that as a call for more censorship.

There's 4 bullet points in that link. None of them are related to censorship.

I can 100% understand how some people can conflate "deplatforming" with censorship (there is an argument to be made that they're the same thing), but this isn't calling for deplatforming.

It specifically states: deplatforming has been done, but what we actually really need is these 4 extra (non-censorship-related) things.

I'm curious to hear an explanation of how either of the following 4 things are censorship:

1. advertising transparency

2. selection algorithm transparency

3. algorithmic boosting of fact-checked sources

4. funding academic research into the impact of online platforms

"Advertising transparency" would certainly have a chilling effect on speech. Also, the article clearly supports the censorship that has already occurred by saying that "Additional" action is needed which is quite a bit more than just "deplatforming has been done".

You sound like the parrot.

"We need more than deplatforming"

"Changing these dangerous dynamics requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors from social media platforms."

Right from your link. Wake up.