If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that all restrictions of free speech are basically equivalent. You claim that these things are "exactly" the same

If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that all restrictions of free speech are basically equivalent. You claim that these things are "exactly" the same: moderating harassment on a private website versus government-enforced suppression of evidence of a massacre. You conclude that to be for one but not the other is to be hypocritical. I think that's a very reductionist way of looking at some complex issues.