Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of the consequence of its use.

Afer Elon Musk took over Twitter, there has been a lot of talk about how freedom of speech will be restored to the platform and such. The thing is that, those claiming that their freedom of speech was breached by being banned from Twitter forget a couple of things.

To begin with, freedom of speech doesn't mean one is free from the consequences of exercising it. People can answer you back, stop talking to you, or sue you for defamation. There are some other consequences you could face, both positive or negative, but there you can't escape from them.

Secondly, Twitter is private company. As such, it can ban of using its platform to spread speech that goes against the user agreement. When you open an account on any social media platform, everyone agrees to a set of rules to follow. If a user breach the user agreement, the platform can ban the user.

Who can't take away your freedom of speech is the government, and you can't be banned from used public forums. Yet, that doesn't mean other people can't use the same public forums to answer your speech, and you aren't immune from the consequences of your speech.

Yes, there are limits on what can be included on user agreements, or at least it should be clear set of rules on the matter. But, that doesn't mean consequences of using your freedom of speech shouldn't exist.

There are consequences of using your freedom of speech, and everyone should expect them to be.

Right to repair should taken for granted by users.

The fact the the right to repair our cars, electronics, home appliance, and other thing we own, isn't a given or something that has to be legislated about is ludicrous. The option of repairing thing that we own, like smartphones and microwaves, should always be an option.

Specially since being able to extend the life of devices helps our pockets, since most of the time repairing is cheaper that replacing, it also means less waste over time. Yet, most importantly we paid to be able to fully own our devices.

Companies shouldn't be able to artificially restrict our right to repair what we own, by raising artificial walls to prevent us to repair the devices we purchased from them. That we can't repair our devices artificially shortens the lifespan of our devices, and only benefits the companies by forcing us to buy a new one we want it or not.

Not only that, repairs should be able to be performed by third parties or even by the owners of the devices. Such repairs shouldn't be a risk to companies intellectual property, specially when a way for companies are given the ways to protect it and third parties are given the tools to make such repairs without risking the respective intellectual properties.

It is important to bring attention to the fact, the most third parties don't want, or need, to steal the intellectual property of the companies who own it. They just need the pertinent information to make the repairs asked for by their costumers. Even if they need access to software to test repairs, they just need the tools to verify the repair is done correctly, even if they see how the tools actually work.

If anything is needed, is to make sure that the framework needed to protect intellectual property while making repairs easily accessible for consumers the norm. Consumers should be able to repair their devices easily, and to choose who makes the repair.

At the end of the day, consumers should have the final choice to repair or renew the devices they own.