That's a very low resolution analysis of what I said.
The reality is that free speech only needs to be a principal because of controversial speech.
People discuss controversial topics and get censored, then complain but ignore solutions like nostr where you can build and decide what kind of content you want to see.
Guy's original post was about exactly that. nostr does need to attract the controversial because that is the grey market for speech.
Giving an unfilterable platform to fascists and anyone on the populist front sounds like a nightmare.
"free speech" is more nuanced than "let everyone say what they want and how they want it".
There are considerations about cybermobing, discrimination, harassment, ...
Boiling it down to a "let everyone do whatever" is a imo terrible and horrific idea, only concoctable by people with no knowledge about human interactions, group dynamics.
Or those who where ever victims of harassment and co.
Yes, everyone should be able to, with in the bounds of law/ethics and human decency, speak their mind.
But your freedom ends where the freedom of others starts. (Very botched version of a German saying)
Giving a platform to anyone will attract those who feel the most opportunistic. This is immensely power that should and needs to be handled with care.
People love to bubble themselves in especially on platforms like nostr (which is just a bot-infested btc circle jerk). With no way of moderating bad ideas (Nazism, fascism, racism, ...) Nostr will attract exactly those and Libertarians with the social ineptitude of a todler.
(The greed infested libertarian mindset is horrible when applied to social networks. )
This network is held together by bots and the dangling of zaps infront of people who think licking the boot harder and deeper will make them financially free.
But what do I know.
