At this point I can't understand people for whom the answer isn't hopefully never.

People never had better tools to promote their views in human history so it's odd to me to worry about that more than clearly damaging effects of that unrestricted freedom.

Freedom should be unrestricted as much as it can be to the point that it doesn't harm anyone else, and we should be able to disagree with the billionaire CEOs who happen to control every form of media and communication

First they censored Something, and I did not speak out Because I was not a Something (and disliked it).

You could make this same slippery-slope argument for any lawful restriction, but it seems mainly popular for speech and gun rights.

As with many other arguments it is far less persuasive to those who were not already persuaded.

Finally, after years of pleading, they came for the Nazis, and I said "why didn't you do this for the first thousand TOS violations? Now the rest of us can sleep a little more easily."