But either way, I'm happy now that we are talking about the actual policies he proposes and not fixated on a semantic argument about which definition of the term "Freedom of Speech" to use.

It's not semantic because you just said exactly what i'm talking about. "if the tweet is against the law in a particular jurisdiction"

Which is America. It's an American company that has to abide by American laws. When talking about freedom of speech in this country, you have to invoke the law because it will get there eventually right?

And it's astonishing to me that anyone would be comfortable, especially conservatives, with one rich dude just buying stuff he doesn't like and changing it unilaterally. That authoritative bullshit is oligarchy. And people are cheering this on like he's some sort of savior really makes me wonder just how comfortable people are with unilateral action on things.