As near as I can tell, the subject of the interview and author of the paper under discussion is frustrated that free speech interferes with the ability of the expert class to control the public narrative in the manner that would serve as persuasive upon the "lay-jurist" masses who make up the under-body of the polis. He correctly points out that "Capitalism" monetizes public speech through media, and turns the vast majority into little more than click-bait propaganda. The public good would be better served if the noise was reduced, and the "epistemic" signal were amplified through gate-keeping rules that would reduce the information available to the masses, in order that expert conclusions were drawn by said unwashed in a manner that would lead them to perceive those conclusions of experts as their own.

His conclusion and lamentation that our capitalistic system isn't structured to facilitate the censorious moderation of the public square is backhandedly framed as a case against capitalism itself. His criticism is more against the notion that criticism of the expert conclusion is allowed than it is against free speech itself. His criticism is more against capitalism than against the profit seeking nature of the elitist establishment media within a click-bait environment, and the natural tendency for that to result in propaganda mills pretending to be reliable sources of information.

This guy isn't concerned in the least about free speech, the free exchange of ideas, or even the societal search for true knowledge; this guy is whining that the expert class no longer monopolizes the form and flow of information, and that the free market of ideas has move the conversation out among the polis and has reduced the influence of the expert aristocracy.

He isn't wrong to worry, but it's really so unseemly to do it right in front of those for whom he obviously harbors contempt.