What a bizarre, two faced world we live in. On one level, the fact that an organization exists to give a "freedom of expression" award is peculiar in-and-of-its

What a bizarre, two faced world we live in. On one level, the fact that an organization exists to give a "freedom of expression" award is peculiar in-and-of-itself. But that same organization which claims to champion freedom of expression doesn't actually do anything to advance the cause of free speech on platforms. In fact, it is awarding a CEO of a platform that expressly forbids the discussion of anything related to possible fraud or lack of integrity in the 2020 election. You can't even talk about it. So on the one hand, they believe YouTube "protect freedoms “in all possible ways” while also "noted that there must be certain limits". How can a contradiction be so blatant? Ultimately, what is the point of this? Is it some kind of Potemkin award meant to normalize censorship as free expression? Is it some silly thing apologists of YouTube can point to when YouTube is criticized as restricting free speech? Edit: Even if you despise the people who think the election was stolen, preventing those people from discussing it on your platform directly contradicts the principle of free expression.