> Free speech is only free if we allow all of it. I am quite happy to see various platforms take on blocking commercial spam - this might be in their own inter

> Free speech is only free if we allow all of it. I am quite happy to see various platforms take on blocking commercial spam - this might be in their own interests (since they want to sell off the right to advertise rather than have people independently leverage their platform to spread advertising but I think it's fair to say that nearly no one wants completely unlimited speech. I don't believe that the NYT should be required to print my novel into every sunday edition of their paper even if they do choose to print some letters to the editor - they have the right to choose what to print. A similar parallel was fax-vertising, where you send unsolicited faxes to random numbers in the hope that someone reads your flier and decides they want your services. Back in the day fax-vertising would result in a lot of paper waste since the fax would be instantly printed out, in the modern world people tend to screen incoming faxes, but it is still a problem... Your unlimited speech is causing someone to waste paper and ink to pay the cost of expressing your speech. When it comes to digital information the cost goes way down and I agree that in this case the actions of social media platforms are pretty despicable but in all things we need to have balance. (Also, please don't open up a statement by calling your detractors neoliberal facists - this isn't reddit)