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*.

In the olden Twitter days, the answer was "Twitter set the rules, so as to navigate the line between maximizing engagement for advertizers, but also generally (but not always) trying to steer engagement away from hateful content"

The new rules are "maximizing engagement at all costs, with engagement steered away from those who don't pay"

That's all it is.

That's how you get to conclusions like "Elon's Jet twitter account should be visibility restricted, but anti-vaxxers, far-right pundits, and anyone who pays me $8 should not"

There's no philosophical principle behind it beyond the guy in charge setting the rules based on his own interests.

You might think that he *shouldn't*, but the corporate and constitutional structure of America means he *can*, and that's what the site has become, and why it's unlikely to correct course in the future.