It has nothing to do with speech but everything to do with making sure they know who's in charge. None of them will say anything about this. Despicable.
In any case it's not currently public property, so users don't have a right to be on Twitter.
But is it a place of public accommodation? And if so, how does that bind Twitter? If someone talks enough trash that it's clear they want to start a fight, a bar can kick that person out. No question. But what if they're kicked out unfairly? What is the line the bar can't cross in kicking people out, and is that a suitable line in the sand to use for Twitter? I don't know.
Do we need a cyberspace public square? I think we do. Should it be Twitter? What would that look like? Public-private adventure?
So the problem people are having is that he still gets to come out in public talking about free speech, when that is objectively bullshit, or that any of the changes being made have anything to do with "free speech".
But it's owned by an corporation. And it can say one thing but do another, or even change it's mind on a whim.
Why is the web not that public square? Your website is your own personal space. No one can tell you what to do there. No one can stop you from speaking.
A public square is property owned by a government. In the U.S. anyone can place themselves on public property and speak without being inhibited by the government.
That is not true in all countries, and even in the US is not true on private property.