I don't think anyone here is calling for the government to restrict the NYT's editorial tone. They're saying that this behaviour is unbecoming of a newspaper of the NYT's reputation, and that their trust in this institution has been damaged as a result.
No one needs to -- the Free Speech Debate is not really about the government, is it? Elon didn't buy Twitter to protect it from the fed. He bought it to protect it from what he calls a "woke mind-virus" -- aka, progressive politics.
This article is trending because -- and I'm generalizing here -- HN skews center-right (what I like to call 'business-right'.) As a result, it has fallen prey to the false narrative of corrupt left-wing mainstream media unfairly maligning good honest billionaires.
Without being inconsistent, I can simultaneously hold these views:
1: "Free speech is important; the NYT should be allowed to say whatever they want, maybe even including shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, whether using their own platform or Twitter's, and neither the government nor private companies should restrict them";
== A pro-free-speech stance
and
2: "the NYT embarrassed themselves by shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, caused public harm, and damaged the trust and reputation that they held with their audience, and I don't think it was wise of them to do so. I'm disappointed, I hope they fix this and do better next time."
== A the-NYT's-editorial-tone-is-within-my-rights-to-criticize stance
(Note: I'm not meaning to imply that a policy of deliberate non-objectivity-skewed-negative in reporting on tech is equivalent to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre. Just taking the example to the extreme limit, for clarity.)
