However, I'm not convinced by the popular argument explaining why Musk is "wrong" - that he has a "responsibility" when speaking to his 120 million followers that is not shared by anyone he mentions in his speech. This seems arbitrarily restrictive at first glance, because it means anyone can speak about Musk, but he can't defend himself by speaking about them.
For example, someone could join a panel on the NYT to accuse Musk of cultivating hate speech. They could nudge a political effort to manufacture outrage as part of a campaign to persuade Apple and Google to remove Twitter from the app store.
Shouldn't Musk be able to respond to those claims with his own megaphone? He's being personally attacked and has the moral right to defend himself - including by attacking the credibility of his opponent.
You can think he's tasteless or classless or even liable to be sued for defamation. But the premise of the argument shouldn't be that he has some extra responsibility not shared by anyone else. He's not an elected official or a head of state. He has the same responsibilities and risk of consequence that anyone else has, relative to the scale where he chooses to operate.