Hmm. Well the OP did say "unpopular" -But, "rest of us" suggests you think I'm in a camp of 1. I assure you a lot of people worldwide accept constraint on their freedom of speech, for social gain. Would I want to have my social credit measured by an app? Nope. Not even close. But, asked about it, most shrug.

Plus, the misunderstood bit. I mean I get you know this, but do you think people actually know their 1st amendment rights? Like, its about specific things, not all things, and no, you (nor Trump) do not have an axiomatic right to say anything you like on Twitter, because "freedom of speech" (hint: Twitter is not a commons, or public space, or bound by laws in Congress)

Do you think "free speech" is going to save the defendents in the Dominion Voting case, Specifically Fox? Remember, the fine point here is "misunderstood" not "is important" -I think the libel laws may save Fox, but it won't be Free speech, it will be Libel laws. I kind of hope they lose because even if $1b is an over estimate, they trashed a corporate entity for political gain, by lying. Thats really bad. They could do it tomorrow to anyone else. Thats bully pulpit bad.

I think the USA has seen the good side of free speech for a while. Most of the former British colonies see the bad side - riots, deaths, civil wars.

The Sunni vs Shia wars and torture in the Middle East. Israel. The race riots in SE Asia. India's Muslim vs Hindu conflicts, as well as Pakistan. You need a minority whose votes are negligible enough. Often those with enough power to be a viable threat (Jews, Chinese billionaires, hardworking educated immigrants).

Trump/MAGA is just following the standard politician playbook of vilifying minorities for votes. When it works, future politicians do the same because it's easy and proven. And then the hatred turns to violence. It's not just MAGA, it's also the people who compare Trump to Hitler and compare MAGA to Nazis.