This is especially true for countries without a constitutional right for free speech or such which made the mistake to only protect free speech from the government but not extremely powerful non-government entities.

Furthermore putting checks on capitalism doesn't mean the government is not directly controlling the money (I mean it's not the same as e.g. communist style planed economy).

To make thinks worse as long as a government still has any power they still can undermine freedom of speech even in mostly unchecked capitalism as they can subtle motivate the extremely money-rich entities such a system will produce to use there money to undermine free speech. Now some would bring here the argument that the markets self regulation will fix that, but I think it should be obvious this doesn't really work for many various reasons (like e.g. DRM, or just the simple fact that everything is extremely complex where it's close to impossible for a consumer to e.g. reliable not buy a direct or indirect nestle owned, to just name some examples.).

That's a red hering argument. (In my opinion.)

Tools are designed for a use case.

Tools are also widely used for some (potentially different) use case.

As such tools are often not amoral at all.

A assault riffle is designed to kill people and potentially many of them (self defense per gun doesn't require killing). As such it's not a amoral tool. Even through you might end up using it in a "good" way, or as "hobby" it's design makes it fundamentally a "weapon for killing, not self defense".

Through this is kinda getting off-topic.

Because whatever moral you want to attach to tools is irrelevant for aboves discussion.

Crypto currencies are a tool for unchecked Kaptialism, which has nothing to do with moral nor does it mean others can't use it for other purposes.

Assuming that a tool is amoral just because it, theoreatically, could be used to act in a morally justified way is just cherry-picking situations in order to have them fit your worldview.