There's nothing inconsistent with people who don't call themselves "free speech absolutists" not being free speech absolutists.

There's a lot inconsistent with someone masquerading as a "free speech absolutist" whilst actually drawing the line in a different place, in this case a place which has all sorts of arbitrary new offences like references to the word "cis", ADS-B feeds, and parody accounts and whatever else has annoyed him recently whilst removing more posts at government request than his predecessors, but is mostly cool with racial hatred.

Musk isn't a free speech absolutist, but he is a free speech proponent.

It is disingenious of progressives to claim that he isn't, because he doesn't allow xyz edge case, when they concurrently believe that being a free speech advocate doesn't require allowing all speech.

Elon Musk literally said he's a free speech absolutist multiple times.

The "lane" is simple and has always been: no "right", as fundamental as it can be, is limitless. For ex. Freedom of movement is largely restricted, and the fact I can't "enter your house freely" is not a slippery slope to internal visas as the sort China uses to restrict movement internally.

Even in the US, freedom of speech IS restricted: the Supreme Court put the bar very high but it didn't say you could say anything. State secrets can't be revealed willy-nilly; even lower, you can't enter a non-disclosure agreement and then violate it.

The "lane" is that we try as much as possible to put clear, consistent guideline that apply to everyone through a legislative (actual laws) and judicial (precedent) process. This is absolutely not the same as Musk deciding on his own, inconsistent, ridiculous fits of drug-addled rage, where he bans the word "cisgender" or @elonjet for his own safety and then allows complete nazi-"WE WILL KILL YOU BITCHES" stuff - and that's only one of many examples.

If you violate an NDA, it is a civil matter. (Unless something significant has changed without me knowing!) That's completely separate from the government embarking on a criminal prosecution over speech. I think it is important to make the distinction.

The right view is, if you want to put it simplistically like this:

Progressives: Elon doesn't care about free speech, he cares about limiting the speech of progressives in favor of the extreme right

Also progressives: Free speech should have limits to protect minorities from aggressors

Nothing at all inconsistent about these two positions, regardless of whether you think that either one is a good idea, or even true.

I see it a bit differently. Progressives tend to believe speech can have limits, and generally support private citizens and companies enforcing it through shame etc.

Elon touts being a free speech absolutist, but limits speech on his platform in a … whimsical … manner.

>Pick a lane.

No, a good society should not pick lanes, but cherries.