This is an excellent exposition of the issues--but the core principle that communication that is deeply unfree is a problem, regardless of whether you happen to implement the lack of freedom via governmental or commercial means, seems so obvious to me that it hardly even needs an argument. On the other hand, the comments illustrate that it clearly does need an argument: not only is the point deeply disputed, not infrequently it doesn't seem like the point is even comprehensible.

Do you have any speculations about what has happened? Is it just that the free speech movement of the 60s/70s was too long ago and we're losing our cultural memory of the problems associated with excessive censorship (blacklisting, etc.)? Or are we actually changed: for example, perhaps many of us don't care to think thoughts that could be censored because we prefer to think with the pack, and if pack-solidarity is a goal, that outliers get silenced or canceled or whatever might not just be not of concern but actually preferred.