I'm viewing it more as a bunch of people with some modicum of success or at least notoriety standing up for bedrock principles that people without a platform are in danger of losing.Okay so the Tech Dirt article to me has one glaring flaw: It kind of downplays the public school angle. That IS the public sector.
The rest of it, Tech Dirt I think is spot-on. Private sector outfits sh!t-canning people because their speech sucks (eg Cotton's Op-Ed) or they suck at their job (NYT Op-Ed page editor) IS censuring, not censoring. These Harpers signatories are elites with literally no financial problems that aren't entirely of their own making.
They don't want there to be popular outrage/consequences for their own shitty speech. Of course if someone who doesn't hold DC-area cocktail parties to the right of THEM says something they disagree with; to Gab/Parler they go. Unless they have a good WHCD after party; then it's important their speech is consequence-free.
Your NYT example is an excellent case in point. You'd think that given their legacy they'd be all for publishing a wide array of voices in the Op-Ed section. Agree that Cotton's op-ed piece was definitely from the right. But the wailing and lamentation that ensued was hilarious. If it had stopped there, ok fine, that is counterspeech so have at it. But firing the editor than ran the piece? How does that not have a chilling effect and send a message that if you don't stay within certain political boundaries you are going to get whacked?
Then the new NYT op ed head honcho tells the staff "“Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism, headlines, social posts, photos—you name it—that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately.”
then a week later they run this:
Opinion | Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police (Published 2020)
Because reform won’t happen.
www.nytimes.com
when this kind of bs is happening at the NYT then we've got serious issues