Let's check. Do the concerns pan out after three days? Here's a concern: "trolls or spoof twitter bots will have the ability to create undue influence". But...oops...Musk said he was going to authenticate users, which would pretty effectively limit bots and would at least somewhat dissuade trolls. Now, you wrote your piece first, so you weren't ignoring him...but your suppositions look more dubious now.

Here's another concern: "Current techniques for swaying public opinion"...wait, hang on, stop right there. You're saying that free speech can be used to sway public opinion. Yeah, that is the point? You're literally arguing here that free speech is bad.

"Lone people with intelligent ideas have the potential to be drowned out". Sure thing. This again isn't a commentary on free speech, but rather on the problems of too much speech. Unlike the previous point, this isn't an attack on free speech since you don't imply that speech is bad, but it also isn't a defense of free speech or a proposal on how to sculpt public discourse so that this problem is remediated. Musk has offered no insight into how to help here, and neither have you. Okay! So, important problem, nobody seems to know how to fix it, including Twitter before the takeover, and we therefore should be worried about Musk's takeover because...?

So, no. Complete fail here. You are the one arguing against free speech, while pretending not to. Try to argue that constrained speech is better, sure...but at least be honest enough to say so. Don't raise the "is he actually trying to stop free speech??" spectre and then attack free speech yourself.