Elon Musk uses his power to censor people who make fun of him or that he otherwise disagrees with. One of his claims of why he bought Twitter was to restore free-speech on the platform, which really turned out to be allowing hate speech and alt-right propaganda while censoring opposing views. My claim is that everyone who claims to be a free-speech absolutist is secretly the exact same: they want free speech for themselves, to spout whatever hate-speech they are tired of having to contain, but will happily censor anyone else who opposes them or makes fun of them. It's been demonstrated hundreds of times over and I've never seen a counterexample.

People who actually value personal freedoms understand that there are always tradeoffs: you cannot simultaneously have freedom-to-bully and freedom-from-bullying. It's a difficult problem. People who claim it's simple are not actually interested in solving it. The people who say that freedom-to-bully is infinitely more important than freedom-from-bullying (as all "free speech absolutists" are inherently claiming) are, quite obviously, bullies that want to get away with bullying.

I mostly agree. The only thing which I'd learn more about is

> I've never seen a counterexample

Perhaps that Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" was made too much in jest and didn't really correspond to some real events, before or after. Or people like Vaclav Havel, who got to the power from the power's opponents, didn't have opportunity to refrain from silencing a political adversary. I don't know.

> Elon Musk uses his power to censor people who make fun of him

Which is petty and stupid. But AFAIK he has not censored political content he disagrees with, so I much prefer it to the previous regime.