Presumably because of the 100-fold increase in communication? The parent comment's point is that the term freedom doesn't mean "the optimal balance of restrict

Presumably because of the 100-fold increase in communication? The parent comment's point is that the term freedom doesn't mean "the optimal balance of restrictions", it means "fewer restrictions". It may be the right move to restrict the behavior of specific actors, but that doesn't mean that restricting their actions increases "freedom". I get that it's in vogue to redefine every word (violence, freedom, harm, etc) to pretend that policy choices don't have trade-offs, but it's a dishonest strategy that's more useful for advocacy than for understanding.