Because frankly free speech absolutists got hijacked by people who have no intention of creating free speech (such as Musk). And frankly, many of the arguments are not meaningful to normal people or to those opposing it. You have to talk to your audience. And in this case it is recognizing that most of laws controlling speech has not been aimed at those universally hated like Nazis, but rather those who have little power, like minorities. People think there is a free lunch here, but it just doesn't exist.

So the free speech absolutist groups got infiltrated by those that wanted to dog whistle and (almost) never tailored arguments to those who were strongly opposed; and worse, those who need free speech the most.

The same often goes for encryption. And we have to deal with adversaries that are willing to straight up lie and promise things that sound nice and sound accurate (things that follow when using basic logic but don't if nuance is incorporated). There are no universal optimas, things with no downsides/costs. But most importantly we have to tailor arguments to audiences, not expect them to be just taken and understood like we do. The priors are different and their objective functions may be different as well. So often people will argue what they think is most important to fall of deaf ears because people don't consider that thing important (at least in context).