All other debates are just special cases of it.

The 1A debates are hyper-legalized proxies for it, either arguing (correctly) that 1A means the rules can't be enforced by the government, or railing against that (usually, but not always based on the expectation the govt would side with your view)

The 230 debates are a (usually poorly informed) hyper-legalized instrumentation to that.

The shadowban/algorithm debates is -- "who sets the algorithm?" as a proxy for "who sets the rules / decides"

But about 99% of all of the different variants of the debates come down to "who sets the rules, and who enforces them".

Note also that nobody serious argues that *nobody* should set the rules or enforce them; even free-speech absolutists don't go that far.

It's just always the question of *who*.