If they publicly state that the house is a "town square" (he has said that of twitter), and they say that they are a "free speech absolutist" (he has said this of himself in the context of this house/town square/website), and state that "By 'free speech,' I simply mean that which matches the law.", then yes, if they don't let you spray-paint (tweet) whatever you want that's not strictly unlawful (like, ah, calling for civil disorder in the UK?), they are indeed a hypocrite.

When the house is digital (twitter is), why even use spray paint as the analogy?

When Musk bought twitter, he all-but-explicitly said "I have finally bought this house, which I will let anyone spray paint".

This is a very sound example of what the right to free speech is; it is a protection for your property rights. The state can't retaliate against you for saying something, and can't compel you to accept any speech on your property.

However, as a defense of Papa Elon, it is ironic. Must and his lickspittles claim that online platform should not be allowed to block whatever speech they want.

Except speech they don't like. Like plane locations.

Italy can use the same argument.

Intellectually dishonest analogy but I’m sure you already know this.