The article seems to focus heavily on China and Russia, which makes for kind of an odd notion of exactly who the "you" is in the title. Most of their readership is not in those two countries. (It also seems to have an extremely America-centric view of the state of the Internet in those two countries, which does not strike me as especially well informed. Its view of China's "social credit" system reflects Fox News version of it and has little to do with reality.)

The main argument it makes that actually affects its readers is that the social media giants are cracking down on what they consider antisocial behavior. It doesn't seem possible to me to make you "less free" by banning you from doing something that was impossible before the Internet. Alex Jones may not be able to post to YouTube any more, but he's no less free than he was in 2005.

It's vacuously true that Facebook and YouTube are less "free" than they were before they began the crackdown; it needs no article to tell you that. But the Internet is still "free": Jones is welcome to support his own infrastructure.

As far as I can tell, this is little more than yet another person demanding access to other people's resources. Which strikes me as inconsistent with its obvious conservative, libertarian leanings.