I don't think it fits the paradox of tolerance, which I believe the author didn't even like that much later in life. But the main principle of that is that you

I don't think it fits the paradox of tolerance, which I believe the author didn't even like that much later in life. But the main principle of that is that you have to compromise your position to face your adversaries at some point or you will loose all tolerance. I don't think this should be used as a template. I am against the death penalty for instance, which the concept could very well be applied to. I think Popper wouldn't like how the argument is used today. That said, a premise of the article is that freedom should be maximized for everyone. The reason many people are skeptical when the topic of freedom being relative is brought up may indeed be influenced by developments in tech. Because sadly, we had a long stretch of paternalism and restricting choice "for the benefit of all" (mostly corporate lock in). In that case, you are not maximizing freedom, even if there can be other kinds of arguments for said approach.