Musk can never implement "free speech" on X, because X is a platform. He can implement "legal speech", that is all.

The funny thing is that in the US, the right of the platforms not to be punished for content they do not create is legally protected by the famous section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

So all censorship done by Twitter, Facebook, and so on, is indeed politically motivated (even when they argue that advertisers are the ones who demand it).

In fact, it's quite clear looking at what happened this past years, that section 230, or rather the threat of removing it, has become leverage for "special interests" in Government to influence (I don't think many of them need "coercing") content "moderation", to the point that platforms are indeed acting as publishers now. This was Trump's argument, which I 100% agree with and I had personally concluded myself before his attemp to remove s. 230.

On the other extreme, Biden advocated for the removal of s. 230 for the exact opposite reasons: he outright wants to legislate what is legal content and what isn't, beyond what is already there (CP, exposure of adult content to minors, etc).

Publish what we tell you to publish, or we will remove section 230 and your protections will be gone. Then, we'll pass legislation regulating "content". Policing with 100% effectiveness is impossible, so we will go after you and shut you down.

And that's exactly what too many here want to walk into WILLINGLY and without any need whatsoever.