Unlike Twitter, I am used to HN users having dialogue about the substance of an article, not simply dismissing articles out of hand based on the ownership of the publication.

It's not exactly a new argument or a disinterested proponent; I think it's OK to take priors into account rather than spending time to address every argument from scratch.

Consider the fact that Quillette (which Lehman helped found explicitly supports allowing free speech for nazis, arguing (in defiance of available facts) that there's no evidence Nazis can radicalize people into being mass shooters. Oddly, they complain about Nazis being treated like ISIS but I don't see them going to bat for ISIS' right to free speech, presumably because there are no doubts about ISIS' use and glorification of violence.

https://quillette.com/2019/06/23/how-free-speech-dies-online...

What substance is there if the publisher doesn't follow their own advice? None.

I don’t think the comparison is valid.

There were always far more available perspectives from a variety of media sources than there are large tech media companies. Rupert Murdoch in his wildest dreams has never had anything approaching the control of information that Twitter, Facebook or Google/YouTube have currently.