> regardless of the up front pain point of far leftie aversion to freedom of speech kneecapping legacy revenue streams
Musk is not in favor of free speech, he is in favor of allowing speech he likes to get a free pass while limiting the speech of people and groups he disagrees with. The left does not like what he is doing because they disagree with which speech he is allowing and which speech he is blocking. What I have seen lately is users reporting trouble for accounts which support Palestine (which are not making any posts which violate twitter rules). And of course Musk is supportive of accounts which primarily exist to harass trans people, which is justifiably upsetting for people who just want trans people to be able to exist without harassment. But it's not about "free speech" it's about who gets to control the speech. The "free speech" line is just a convenient narrative.
I don't think you are correct about free speech being a means to a different end rather than an end in itself for him. He has stated he is in favor of free speech and has converted the rules and enforcement to focus on things breaking the law, which is a reasonable thing to do if your position is supporting freedom of speech because the refining system for the law is based around constitutional ideas of free speech (among other things). I agree that that would make him supportive of accounts that violate far left ideas of what should be allowed to be said to anyone because freedom of speech necessitates putting up with a bunch of ugly things being said that fall short of illegal speech rather than just irrationally and incorrectly claiming words are violence and banning all ugly from the conversation.
It's not just permitting speech the left doesn't like. I don't care enough to follow this closely and have a bunch of sources at the ready, but it seems that left leaning accounts which do not violate the rules are being targeted by twitter in various ways. There was a pro-palestine account which people said they would follow and then go back and somehow see they were not following it. And some words can imply violence - for example doxxing is "just words" but presents real world risks to people, and there are other forms of harassment which are seemingly against twitter rules which is being permitted. Famously the libsoftiktok account posts a lot of harassment of trans people, and internal leakers at twitter show that this account has been flagged to prevent it from being banned even when it violates community standards.
So actual rule violating accounts are purportedly being protected, while left leaning accounts which do not violate rules are being manipulated behind the scenes, if the reports are to be believed.
Again I recognize that I have not provided sources and I don't expect you to just take me at my word, but I wanted to correct what you think I am saying. I am not just concerned with uncomfortable speech, but outright harassment and the apparent suppression of certain left leaning accounts. That is why I say it is about controlling the narrative.
EDIT:
Did a couple of quick searches. Banning journalists for being critical of Musk/Twitter isn't very free speech oriented!
Musk is not in favor of free speech, he is in favor of allowing speech he likes to get a free pass while limiting the speech of people and groups he disagrees with. The left does not like what he is doing because they disagree with which speech he is allowing and which speech he is blocking. What I have seen lately is users reporting trouble for accounts which support Palestine (which are not making any posts which violate twitter rules). And of course Musk is supportive of accounts which primarily exist to harass trans people, which is justifiably upsetting for people who just want trans people to be able to exist without harassment. But it's not about "free speech" it's about who gets to control the speech. The "free speech" line is just a convenient narrative.