Either one would agree that if the "MSM" were publishing bad things then there's a need to control it. At which point the question is why is a social media website different. Or you'd say that child porn and other bad things being published on websites are fine and there's no need to control things. At which point you'd be pretty wildly out of step with the majority of the population.
MSM are publishing bad things, freedom of speech is important and I don't think we need to "control" anything (child porn is illegal by any measure, it's an abuse issue, not a speech issue). I can't even imagine how you jumped to that conclusion. Just because I don't agree with something, it doesn't mean I'm ok with eliminating it through fascism.
You can't claim to support total free speech and also accept that there is content that is bad for society that needs to be controlled. The moment you accept the latter premise you then need to build enforcement mechanisms and have debates that boil down to political preferences on what constitutes bad. I think it's kind of a navel gazing gesture to just hand wave at "I support the good free speech' and wash your hands of any of the coercion/"fascism" that comes with how the sausage is made.
