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.