Two questions related to the article.

Fist question: Is it arguing that private companies can, or cannot set their own moderation policy?

It seems to be saying they can at the beginning, but then later when Elon says he wants to alter the moderation on twitter (A company he owns), it says they cannot.

Which is it?

> which topics they can and cannot teach in schools.

Second question: When were teachers not told which topics to teach?

If a teacher decided to start teaching flat earth (as a serious topic) they'd be asked to leave. While they're on the clock in front of my kid, I'd rather they follow the approved curriculum.

Teachers are not being told what they can say outside of work, they are being told what to say inside work. They are free to find jobs in other roles, if they don't agree with their boss (aka the voter and by extension the parents of the kids they're teaching).

I started reading this, and a linked article[0] promoting security by obscurity, then came to a personal conclusion that techcrunch is a sensationalizing news source and stopped reading.

[0] https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/26/elon-musk-twitter-privacy/

> Free speech is the guarantee that no action defined as speech is illegal outside a few harmful examples, like hate speech

For such an inflammatory title, you’d think the author would know hate speech and racist speech is not illegal in America.

> Censorship is when state authorities limit the speech of the people under their power.

That is plainly wrong, that is just a subset of censorship.

> But this is an unbelievably complicated and nuanced concept

No, the concept is very simple. Defining and agreeing on exceptions in regards to ethical considerations is a hard and nuanced discussion. Some people want to force certain considerations which certainly violates the principle of free speech. That too is a very simple concept.

The EU just released a law that illegal content has to be removed withing 24h. This is hilarious as determining a statement to be legal or not would take at least 6 month with the load our legal systems have to endure. But I guess after that period the content has to be removed rather quickly? The digital sphere is a hard problem for the old continent. I live in Europe and at times it is a bit embarrassing.

But that is irrelevant because of course companies will err on the side of caution before any legal channels are about to be used. The criticism and implications of overblocking are well known and the author has chosen to ignore that argument completely even if we had ample empirical evidence that this is exactly what has happened.

I am not really keen on billionaires using their capital to influence content either, but to my shame I must admit that the approach of Musk seems plainly better than that most media personalities suggested to us in recent years.

It is no secret that there are other political groups that want to curb freedom of speech. Maybe it is time to learn that you should not advocate for it if your political opponents have more experience implementing it.

> baby’s-first-free-speech-debate

Is this quality journalism of '22?

> What this all portends is an incredibly simplistic and harmful take on free speech and moderation

There is nothing to add that we just have to disagree and I fear any compromise will be difficult with these axioms on the table.