From what I understand, there’s (at least) two kinds of free speech. There’s free speech as in the government will not restrict your speech, which is important for criticizing the state without fear of being locked up. Then there’s the fanatical idea of maximizing speech: that the marketplace of ideas requires minimal limitations on what can be said anywhere, and the ‘best ideas’ will naturally rise to the top.

The problem with the latter is that it is incredibly noisy, easy to manipulate, and often an illusion anyway. Proponents of the latter in the US will use the former as cover, but they are different things. The 2nd 1st Amendment has nothing to do with your ability to moderate private spaces. Removing trolls, enforcing rules, and focusing discussion are all necessary for engaging in useful dialogue.

The Elon Musks of the world are both wrong and fuckin’ nuts, in my opinion. Often, what they really want is for the consensus of a place of discussion to more closely align with their own ideals. They think, “I am right, others disagree, therefore there must be some fundamental flaw in the system.” The simpler explanation is that they’re a moron.

In this case the issue is likely Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It shields internet services from content posted by users.

Both USA parties are interested in replacing it, but for very different reasons.

I don’t have a solution, but I agree with your assessment of the issue.