The question is what limits are made.
That costs money.
Speak in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and you can be placed in a "free speech zone" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
Let others say the wrong thing on your platform, be it advocating against a narrative or revealing evidence of war crimes, and you can be tortured.
Do you have any examples of this happening?
As for limits, I think by now we have collected enough data from social media use to know what kinds of posts border on outright immoral and are a negative to society. Some of these have been captured and prohibited by law. It wouldn't be that hard to use the existing laws and norms as a test bed.
But again some people don't want free speech because they are afraid their feelings may be hurt in an exchange. Mostly boils down to that.
Right to be heard implies a coercion to be heard. That’s the paradox of free speech.
Snowden chose exile over torture, and so has been separated from his family for over a decade.
Many people were tortured that didn't even work as journalists; just victims of bad metadata or the wrong name.
Many countries and organizations even consider so-called "standard practice" in American jails to constitute torture. Solitary confinement, sometimes for years. Refusal of basic medical care, nutrition, sanitation. Physical abuse from guards. Unmarked graves behind the jail [5].
Nowadays even environmental lawyers can get put in jail for the crime of winning judgments against fossil fuel companies (Donziger [6]).
* - Wasn't physically tortured, but he did reveal torture and was heavily retaliated against for his trouble.
...
0 - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
1 - https://theintercept.com/2020/01/02/chelsea-manning-torture-...
2 - https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-dd3111dc6...
3 - https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/us/former-cia-officer-is-...
4 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_al-Hajj
5 - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/families-in-disbelief-afte...
6 - https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-lets-chevron-...
Chelsea was published on Wikileaks as well.
Daniel Hale was published on The Intercept. They faced no consequences, but they also failed to protect Hale's identity. Hale was then made into something of an example (despite many honors from people praising his bravery).
Al Jazeera (Sami al-Hajj's publisher) have been repeatedly lethally targeted lately (with US made and funded weapons) without much comment from US media.
It's not hard to imagine social media discussion being made a lot more meritocratic, and a lot less censorious.
Vital scientific perspectives on topics that affect literally billions of people ought not be secretly censored for political purposes by non-scientists. That isn't really a huge demand; it's pretty basic freedom and science and health stuff.
Anyway, you're entitled to yourself and W's interpretation. Me, I go with the ACLU on this one.