[52-6F-62]

It makes sense, but how can you possibly reconcile that with reality.

Reality is much more complex. The effects that have been sought through the manipulation of "free speech" on platforms like Twitter are so dangerous because they are insidious. They are insidious because they are matrix, they are not linear (like "go kill that guy"). The bad actors seek to leverage it to gradually sway opinion into such a state that everyone is shouting exactly what they want them to shout.

This isn't arcane knowledge anymore, it's been the subject of exposé after exposé over the past decade.

Those kinds of effects weren't possible at scale over other forms of communication. It's the immediacy and the context-less nature of the communications that enables them.

Applying Mill's argument here is like trying to apply Earth's physical constraints to actions on the moon.

The rules governing those platforms aren't perfect, but they're like a gardener spotting new weed growth and clipping it off.

If you want freedom, it was never in Jack Dorsey's (or now Elon's) garden, man. (or, What freedom was there ever in the courts of kings?)