It's kinda funny to me how many people who claim to value "true free speech" are in favour of the government being able to enforce speech. Fundamentally, what

It's kinda funny to me how many people who claim to value "true free speech" are in favour of the government being able to enforce speech. Fundamentally, what people are saying here is that the current US administration should be able to force YouTube to distribute material containing lies that benefit them. This is obviously just as harmful as someone being stopped from publishing something by the government. I agree there are cases where private entities can become so important to speech that they need to be regulated, but the kneejerk response to this kind of thing just seems so ill thought out. The right to freedom of expression clearly has to include the freedom to not express something. The obvious example is, should Google be able to go to Fox News and force them to publish pieces that Google write? Is the line editorial control? That path leads to YouTube ceasing to exist as a platform anyone can upload to, which seems like a large cost as well. I don't think there are easy answers, and "free speech" tends to end up as a thought-terminating cliche in these discussions, ignoring the fact that there are multiple parties with the right to freedom of speech that can conflict. The question really becomes about the right to platform, and if everyone has a legal right to any platform, everything will be drowned out in noise.