The broadest form of the argument in support of an absolutist view on the right to free speech is that it is through argument that we reach higher truth. Only through the exchange of ideas can society evolve its knowledge base. Should we wish to evolve intellectually as a society, we cannot stifle speech, but must let the ignorant speak freely so that their ignorance can be corrected. This position is summarized in this quote from John Stuart Mill:

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

His position was not new, but was consistent with the times, as the same principle had already been enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution prior to his birth:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The two are different is particulars, but the same generally. Mill's position was philosophical, applying in all instances, whereas the Constitution's concern was solely in limiting the government's ability to control speech, but making no suggestion that free speech be protected in other contexts. In both instances, however, the right to speak is of the highest order.

Before getting to Twitter, a very cursory overview of the history of the press is in order. Historically, the power of the press has been in the hands of the very few. From the invention of the printing press, those who had access to it, and the paper and distribution means available to them, had a disproportionately loud voice. The same held true when new mass media means were created. Those who published newspapers, transmitted over radio waves, had access to television transmissions, and those who had access to cable transmissions held the power to communicate as they saw fit, while the rest of us could only hope to have our letter to the editor accepted for publication.

Twitter, and other forms of internet communications, has broken down many of the barriers in the past, giving the power of mass communication to regular people in their living rooms. This should come as great news to Mill, as this wide open communication will allow all ignorance to be explored and erased.
Of course, that doesn't seem to be what's going on though.

It would seem counterintuitive that we might today harken back to the days when mass communication was a purely elitist enterprise, controlled by a handful of corporate executives. Were those actually the good old days, when we could trust our news sources to do their best to be accurate and honest?

The position I'm taking, and your thoughts and objections to this is what I am seeking, is that free speech absolutism (a title Elon Musk has given himself) is not an ideal, but places the considerable power of the press in undeserving hands, whose objective isn't to seek higher truths and dispense with ignorance, but is for their own personal gain and self-promotion.

So what is the solution I'm suggesting? We only need to look at the journalistic ethics previously demanded when mass media existed on a smaller scale. An example of them are here: https://www.medialook.al/en/the-5-principles-of-ethical-journalism/

"1. Truth and Accuracy
Journalists cannot always guarantee ‘truth’, but getting the facts right is the cardinal principle of journalism. We should always strive for accuracy, give all the relevant facts we have and ensure that they have been checked. When we cannot corroborate information we should say so.

2. Independence
Journalists must be independent voices; we should not act, formally or informally, on behalf of special interests whether political, corporate or cultural. We should declare to our editors – or the audience – any of our political affiliations, financial arrangements or other personal information that might constitute a conflict of interest.

3. Fairness and Impartiality
Most stories have at least two sides. While there is no obligation to present every side in every piece, stories should be balanced and add context. Objectivity is not always possible, and may not always be desirable (in the face for example of brutality or inhumanity), but impartial reporting builds trust and confidence.

4. Humanity
Journalists should do no harm. What we publish or broadcast may be hurtful, but we should be aware of the impact of our words and images on the lives of others.

5. Accountability
A sure sign of professionalism and responsible journalism is the ability to hold ourselves accountable. When we commit errors we must correct them and our expressions of regret must be sincere not cynical. We listen to the concerns of our audience. We may not change what readers write or say but we will always provide remedies when we are unfair."

While perhaps the government should not enforce these rules (as noted in the 1st Amendment), Mill's ideal cannot be accomplished without an adherence to these standards. Nothing is gained by knowingly promoting false, harmful, unapologetic, unexamined claims. Musk's assertion that he is an absolutist is better stated as that he is simply an unethical journalist. Equating a review board to a censorship committee is to argue there should be no ethical oversight.

I also think it's not a coincidence that those who have chosen journalism as a degree have the most regret (87%). https://thepostmillennial.com/journalism-is-most-regretted-major-for-college-grads . It's impossible to compete and be ethical at the same time.

So, my point is that if we wish to extract the good from free speech, instead of treating free speech like a holy rite, we have to have institutions that are willing to enforce rules on that speech (much like our world class mod team here).

I also want to give credit here, to this article, for sparking many of these ideas: https://philosophynow.org/issues/151/Mill_Free_Speech_and_Social_Media#:~:text=Mill%E2%80%99s%20Argument%20For%20Free%20Speech