How is silencing any speech a win for free speech? Don't you see that this could set a harmful precedent?

The mantra of free speech is that the correct response to speech you don't like is more speech. Twitter deciding not to carry Milo is Twitter's speech, just as Fox News choosing their hosts is Fox News' speech.

When people exercise their rights in ways you don't like, that's a victory for rights. When the Nazis got to march in Skokie, that was a victory for free speech, even if the march was harmful and damaging. The same is true for Twitter deleting Milo's account. Really.

One is a gigantic social media platform that millions are influenced by exercising censorship on public discourse. The other is a minority journalist's voice. Still think it's not an issue?

It's a huge issue, just not the way you think it is. It's a victory, not a defeat. The New York Times gets freedom of speech just like Milo does. Twitter gets freedom of speech too. Yes, it would be a huge issue if, for example, the government tried to compel Twitter to carry Milo's speech.

I agree with you that it's not a First Amendment issue, but it's still quite obviously a free speech issue, and it's sparked a much-needed debate over whether progressive-leaning social media giants should serve as impartial moderators of political discourse.

Depending on exactly how that happens, that would be a huge defeat for freedom of speech, just as pressure for Fox News to be more Liberal would be. Free speech wins when Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and everyone else gets to shape their message, not when we have "guaranteed fair" monoliths.