This might be the stupidest First Amendment take I've seen in a while. Most generous interpretation is he has somehow managed to confuse the first amendment and section 230, thus is trying to play up the publisher/platform distinction people were making up with regards to social media (no such distinction ever actually existed and the debate was largely nonsense). The argument of "we're not restricting your speech, just where you can speak it" can easily be used to suppress any and all speech.
Software Engineer, Hardware tinkerer.
80 HDs?