Well there can be no consequences at T=0, but thanks to transparency, consequences can happen, by a collective decision, at T=1. Therefore having transparency is important on its own, it facilitates change towards fairness.
And that's what I am saying - we should still ask for transparency even in the environment of no consequences.
It's also possible that people are not sure about the lack of consequences, and again, transparency then prevents them doing bad thing even if actually there are no consequences.
But of course tautology is tautological by definition. (I am almost 50 and kinda tired of these eristic games on the Internet.)
If we're in a position to ask for something, I would rather ask for consequences. We already know what bad stuff is being done: more transparency has marginal utility, under the circumstances.
There is sufficient transparency to know violations are occurring, and we can usually rule out other actors circumstantially to give us a suspect – often Facebook, Google, or another "Big Tech" company. There isn't enough transparency to conclusively prove it's them (as opposed to some secret shadowy conspiracy who've concealed all other evidence of their existence – which we do need to rule out, for the innocent-until-proven-guilty standard), but that's what the legal fact-finding process is for.
