[bediger4000]

This isn't rigorous of course, but "free speech" has come to mean oligarchs and corporations more-or-less outright buying politicians and supreme court judges, and media that's limited to touting some oligarch's best interests, and carrying very invasive, targeted advertising. When ordinary people do manage to offer up an opinion on a larger scale, they're cancelled or worse, doxxed and targeted by something like Alex Jones' or Trump's armies of followers.

[pibaker]

So you think free speech only benefits Trump and his friends?

Have you stopped for a split second and thought about what can happen to YOU, you know, someone who seem to have issues with the current president, if there is no free speech?

[rickydroll]

Free speech is not a binary effect (have/dont have). You can have free speech, but the parties you communicate to are only listening to others with more compelling voices. (politicians and funding sources or news outlets and mango temper tantrums)

[bediger4000]

I warned you it wasn't rigorous, and I tried to balance my objections over all oligarchs, and I tried to tell you why non-oligarchs don't have free speech in most senses. It's just like technically we all have copyright in all our thoughts expressed in a tangible form. But enforcement is difficult and expensive, limiting real copyright to the already wealthy.

If you don't want answers don't ask the questions.