I would argue that North Korea has very different reasons for banning western media. The US is not banning specific messages, it's banning a specific platform.

I feel like in general we need a serious update of our conception of free speech. The kind of censorship classical liberalism had in mind is is still relevant, but it's only half the picture. The real battle now is the battle for algorithms and attention spans. Free speech is no longer just about getting your message out there, because it will just die in the ocean of information.

There's also a new enemy of free speech, that works in an entirely different way: the targeted lie. We're now able to handcraft lies for the people most likely to believe them. The liar is no longer obligated to keep their story straight. They can sell a dozen different stories to different people.

This is a huge problem, and one that cannot even be meaningfully addressed if we're stuck with classical liberalism's conception of "free speech".

The Twitter saga offers a nice case in point. Perhaps the most important takeaway from the "Twitter files" is that we have a very serious problem on our hands, and we have not yet developed the tools to deal with it.

I would argue that North Korea has very different reasons for banning western media. The US is not banning specific messages, it's banning a specific platform. — Echarmion

There are a number of concerns about TikTok that do make it different (like concerns that is being used to track user's locations and invade their privacy), but some are the same.

From https://www.npr.org/2022/11/17/1137155540/fbi-tiktok-national-security-concerns-china:

"They also worried about potential abuses of TikTok's algorithm, and specifically that it could "be used to subtly indoctrinate American citizens" by censoring some videos and promoting others."

This is to say they don't want the Chinese government to have the right to speak to American citizens in it own terms, which is to specifically declare that some sorts of speech cannot be spoken for the danger it imposes. And I think most would agree that we shouldn't allow our free speech rights the power to destroy us (the idea that the US Constitution is not a suicide pact) by allowing foreign governments to distribute their propaganda on US citizens. I compare this modern Tik Tok issue to the days when enemy propaganda leaflets would be dropped from airplanes.

But to say that we're blocking speech due to the message it imposes directly conflicts with the notion that we should allow everyone to speak freely because eventually truth will prevail.

There's also a new enemy of free speech, that works in an entirely different way: the targeted lie. We're now able to handcraft lies for the people most likely to believe them. The liar is no longer obligated to keep their story straight. They can sell a dozen different stories to different people. — Echarmion

I think that's right, which is the result of greater access to mass media, now that everyone has a computer and can post. When mass media was in the hands of the very few, there was more of an agreement to abide by journalistic ethics, which were emphasized to those studying to become journalists, to now that no longer being the agreement.

Twitter has shown that the DNC and Biden Campaign were given control of the message to disseminate, which is no different than when we learned that Sean Hannity of FoxNews was directly communicating with the Trump campaign and offering advice to them during the Capitol riot. The distinction between journalism and marketing is now forever blurred.

Something that's received attention, is getting kids to do something bad, whether to themselves or other. (I tossed in a list of examples toward the bottom.)
With Internet anonymity, it's something anyone could do, regardless of location, age, whatever.
The topic is also related to bullying. If a kid isn't reading this stuff themselves, other kids in their circle might.
Some say it's purely the responsibility of parents to deal with, others add school teachers.
As far as I can tell, this is a fair case for proactive censorship. Something like, what good is a society that does not try to look after children and what they do?
Note, though, there are also positive examples, like this one:

Ice Bucket Challenge dramatically accelerated the fight against ALS (Jun 4, 2019)

Anyway, I'm guessing most would want this stuff minimized both via some sort of censoring and education. Arguments, informed opinions, ...?

_{Examples
U.S. says 82 youths have died in "choking game" (Feb 14, 2008)
Ingesting and Aspirating Dry Cinnamon by Children and Adolescents: The “Cinnamon Challenge” (May 1, 2013)
Factitial Dermatitis Due to the “Salt and Ice Challenge” (Apr 2014)
Mom believes son died from ‘choking game’ online (Mar 22, 2016)
Correction: The Choking Game on YouTube: An Update (May 17, 2016)
Teens are daring each other to eat Tide pods. We don’t need to tell you that’s a bad idea. (Jan 17, 2018)
‘Salt and ice challenge’ leaves teens with severe burns (Jan 26, 2019)
What Is the Momo Challenge? (Feb 26, 2019)
Current Trends in Social Media–Associated Skin Harm Among Children and Adolescents (Apr 2019)
Authorities warn of viral TikTok challenge causing fires (Jan 22, 2020)
FDA warns about serious problems with high doses of the allergy medicine diphenhydramine (Benadryl) (Sep 24, 2020)
Dangers of the TikTok Benadryl challenge (Jan 7, 2021)
TikTok, Tide Pods and Tiger King: health implications of trends taking over pediatric populations (Feb 2021)}

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. — Hanover

I'm not sure I like that notion. It premises freedom on its utility, while I think of freedom axiomatically as an end in and of itself. It would be regrettable if free speech did not contribute to our collective knowledge and enlightenment, but if that were the case, shouldn't we still value free speech as more fundamental than whatever outcomes come from it? It seems safe to say that often free speech results in the good guys losing, as, for whatever reason, lies, misinformation and speciousness prevail in the court of public opinion, but still, we are glad that everyone gets to speak, as not only do I want freedom for myself, but I want freedom for others, as I would take restricting their freedom as odious in and of itself, but also, transitively, a restriction on my freedom to hear them, even if in principle alone. Put simply: I want my freedom, and I want everyone to have their freedom too - because it's right. The benefit of greater understanding is great too, but it's secondary to the enjoyment of the mere pure right itself.

I think the "free speech because free speech is how ideas progress" argument is weaker than "free speech because it is an inalienable right no matter it also is good for the progress of ideas". With the former, when free speech does not result in better ideas prevailing, then the door is opened to saying, "Well, I guess that didn't work out, did it?"

Language is a social construct. As such it attains to significance at all only in virtue of the restrictions that are placed upon it. Thus while it is permissible to call a spade a hand held personal earth-moving device, it is not permissible to call it a butterfly sandwich.

Of course if you want to talk to yourself in your own private language, in your own private echo-chamber, you can do what the fuck you like, but as soon as you are talking to other people, there are rules, because there is interaction. Generally, fraud, deception, threats and bullying, and various sorts of wind up and manipulation are frowned upon.

One might liken free-speech to the free market. The market is only free if it is regulated to exclude shysters, robbers, fraudsters, and so on. In the village market, one can rely on the honesty of neighbours who will have to come back again and again to the same customers, but in the global economy, and the tech-economy that no one is ever able to be competent in all fields, regulation is essential.

We can argue about the rules, that's one of the rules, but to suggest that there be no rules is to run around naked in public screaming "look what I've got!" — Thanks, but no thanks.

Free discussion amongst equals is how truth can prevail, but only amongst honest equals committed to the project that truth should prevail. There is no education to be found in the talk of the dishonest, the foolish or the insane.

Freedom comes from order, not chaos. We have the freedom of the skies because the skies are heavily regulated, to the extent that even flocks of birds have to be dissuaded from flightpaths of aircraft.

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. — Hanover

I was trying to understand whether these last few clauses were directed at Musk or those who would use a platform like Twitter. From what you say in the following, it seems to be Musk:

No, it's just self-promotion, which is the driver of all social media. He's trying to show that his new branded version is better than the old, so everyone should come back and see what he's got in store. PT Barnum is waving people in to see the show. — Hanover

I think that's mistaken. It seems to me that Elon Musk is highly idealistic in all sorts of ways, and that there are genuine principles at play here. But I should think that this is beside the point because the thread is presumably about something which transcends Musk's personal motives. Inculpating Musk on the basis of motive won't answer the question about Mill and free speech absolutism. If the thread is to go beyond a personal criticism of Musk, then we must at least take him at his word instead of claiming that he is merely hiding behind the facade of free speech absolutism.

He won't act from conscience. He'll count beans. If removal of the post will increase profits, that's what he'll do. It has nothing to do with consistent application of standards, good citizenship, or anything beyond gaining the best return on investment. — Hanover

And in this post "self promotion" narrows to "material gain," which I would say is an even more difficult charge to sustain. Bean counters don't acquire Twitter. The value of these social media companies is highly dubious, even more so now that their main source of income (micro advertising) is coming under scrutiny. Tesla is hands-down the better investment, and Musk was in a perfect position to refocus his energies there. Instead he made an idealistic intervention into Twitter, which from a financial perspective was foolishness.

I think free speech absolutism is the wrong road, but I don't think the personal charges you are bringing against Musk stick. Even if they did, I think the more interesting conversation would take him at his word. Returning to your thesis:

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. — Hanover

This isn't an argument against free speech absolutism, it's an argument against Musk. There is no inherent connection between free speech absolutism and placing power in the undeserving hands of a tyrant or oligarchy. Even if we think Musk is a tyrant (or someone who is greedy, unscrupulous, and undeserving), the argument would seem to be invalid.

Mill's ideal cannot be accomplished without an adherence to these [journalistic] standards. — Hanover

Granting this for the sake of argument, does the ideal require institutional censorship?

I myself do not think Mill would accept Twitter as a counterargument, mostly because Twitter isn't even 20 years old. Presumably Mill's anti-censorship argument takes a much longer view than 20 years. To his credit, all of the garbage on Twitter will likely be irretrievably lost in the next 30-40 years, just like the public square banter of the past.

Regarding Mill and free speech absolutism, the first question is historical: Did Mill promote a form of free speech absolutism? I would uncritically venture to claim that he did, and in the very section of On Liberty that you quoted from. There he is launching his argument that, “The power itself is illegitimate,” namely the power to coerce in matters of thought or opinion. He denies the power even to governments—even to the best of governments.

The second question is whether free speech absolutism would further Mill’s goal as it is interpreted in the thread, namely, "reaching higher truth." Suppose we look at all of history and the degree to which it has achieved Mill’s goal, and then we theoretically tinker with the variable of free speech. How do we suppose the tinkering would affect the degree to which Mill’s goal is achieved? If we turn the knob towards free speech absolutism, is Mill’s goal better achieved? What if we turn the knob away from it?

I think this thought experiment favors free speech absolutism, because history itself acts as a refining fire, burning away intellectual dross, especially as empires fall. The fire is not overwhelmed by too much raw material, and everything that is of high quality will pass through unscorched. The propagation of low quality material is more costly and therefore probabilistically less likely to occur than the propagation of high quality material. Humans are more keen to pass on what is valuable, beautiful, useful, and true, than they are to pass on the dross. Furthermore, any "scorching" would come more from censorship than from anything else. Thus at least on the long view, free speech absolutism seems to aid Mill’s goal.

But the third and final question asks which of the two better further Mill’s goal: free speech absolutism or intentional truth-seeking? In this case I think the answer is that intentional truth-seeking is much better at furthering the goal. At the same time I do not think that either Mill or Musk would disagree with this, and I also do not think that intentional truth-seeking (including journalistic standards) necessarily requires censorship. The idea here is that truth does not require censorship to help it win the day (or the century, or the millennium). Since intentional truth-seeking and good journalistic standards will further Mill’s goal even where censorship does not exist, journalistic standards do not represent a counterargument to free speech absolutism. I am sure Musk is in no way opposed to journalistic standards, nor need he be. He would probably just say that Twitter is the public square, not a journal, but that those who freely adhere to strong journalistic standards are crucially important voices within the public square. Apparently neither Mill nor Musk would be forced to sacrifice journalistic standards for the sake of free speech absolutism.

The reason I myself am not a proponent of free speech absolutism is because I believe some limited censorship aids the health of a society, and I am thinking of things even beyond Musk’s willingness to adhere to U.S. law. I don’t know Mill so well, but I would be willing to follow Plato and Aristotle when it comes to this topic. I would have agreed if your original statement had been leveled at Twitter users rather than Musk, and so would Plato. It seems to me that an undue focus on Musk has mucked up the analyses. Beyond that, I’m not convinced the characterization of free speech absolutism is as robust as it ought to be, but that’s for another day.