Society is ever-evolving so it's understandable that our definition of "free speech" will necessarily need to evolve along with that. Is it freedom of speech to defame people in the press? Is it freedom of speech to mislead people about the results of an election? Is it freedom of speech to use AI to mimic the voice or appearance of others?

How do we balance the freedom of speech of individuals versus the freedom of speech of corporations? Especially in cases where the corporation is providing a public utility in all but name? (eg, Cloudflare, Twitter)

We are still trying to figure out the right balance between these tensions. I'm definitely not arguing that we've gotten it right so far (far from it, in many cases). And I'm not discounting the risk of, as you put it, "massive societal control" -- we've seen that, too.

I just get irritated when I see people acting as if these are easy questions with clear answers. They're absolutely not. That sort of conviction is deeply unattractive because it shows that you're not seeing the world and its complexities in a clear light. I don't understand how anyone can look at the situation and not come away being impressed by the fundamental difficulty of trying to navigate the middle path.

As a demonstration of this point, the exact issue you're describing -- whether a company like Twitter has the right to block certain types of posts on their platform, especially when they may be pressured to do so by the government -- is on the Supreme Court docket as we speak. It's far from settled law. The case that I believe you're referencing ("illegal relationship") was appealed, and its ruling put on hold:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a243_7l48.pdf