After skimming the article that is linked, a very simple problem emerges in the author's logic.

He says basically, while I agree in censoring these topics (hate, racism, anti-semitism, holocaust denial, etc), the problem is censoring these other topics (climate skepticism, mail-in voter fraud, etc).

This is exactly why we're in this problem in the first place. Everybody has their line where they say, "Well, yeah, I disagree with that too, so it's okay to ban that..." There is no such line. The only reasonable place to step in is specific planning of violence. Platforms cannot be complicit in the logistics of violent attacks on individuals or property, or they become liable for those specific violent acts.

Other than that, for me, it has to be that anything goes. If a person wants to come on and say, "All white (or black, or red, etc) people should be put up against the wall and shot," that should be allowed. It's not like the thought goes away if we censor it. Much better to have it out where it can be aired so we can take shots at it. This is how public opinion can actually be changed.

The reason censors fear free speech, however, isn't because of the horror of what they hear. What scares them is that they have so thoroughly fucked everything up that people will listen. That's what scares them. TPTB have made themselves so unpopular that people are now willing to step much further out on the spectrum than they would be in a functioning society. The fact that the society is not functioning is directly the responsibility of those running the show, and they cannot allow that to be discussed openly. That's why they're censoring. It's not about what they're censoring; it's about their failure, which everyone agrees on.

The only way to be able to keep discussing that is - outside of clear specific logistical planning - anything goes. This is what freedom of speech is. It's hideously ugly at times, but it's the only genuinely functional vehicle to non-violent change.