I mean... this is what I'm trying to get at and why it is complicated. The issue I see is that the conversation has become reductionist. I see a few options:

1) Business as usual (i.e. private entities make their own rules on their own property).

2) We classify these as public spaces. We then run into problems of "all" or "of a certain size." Both of which will have weird effects. "All" makes it difficult for competitors or niche groups (do we allow all articles on HN?). Of a certain size means companies have to transition and creates a new major speed bump in companies going through that transition.

3) We create a government owned platform. Now we'd be legally required to have free speech protected as this is clearly public property and free speech applies to government controlled platforms. But this has the downside of potential for abuse and turnkey tyranny. This becomes a bigger problem because these platforms tend to be multi-national. So does each nation run their own? Do we connect them? Does the UN run it?

4) We radically restructure the internet to be privacy forward. No one can dip their fingers in the pudding and taste it. No governments, no private entities. Do we do this centralized? Federated? Mixture? Do we do domain fronting? Do we force large private entities to facilitate such techniques so that we have a cultural fight? (i.e. encourage secure communications in oppressed countries) Or do we leave everyone alone?

There's a lot of other options too, but I see these as at least covering a few major points. The conversation is really difficult and we need to think about how to solve it and what the problems are instead of just shouting about it being a problem. I think everyone agrees that it is a problem, so let's move the conversation forward. Especially on a form for people that are able to solve many of the technological challenges to some of the above options. But society needs to decide the societal parts of the solutions and that requires discussion.

I like option number 3. Anybody who wants to can use it. I predict that we would quickly see it overrun by spammers and other idiots, and it would become obvious that very few people really want to use a “free speech” platform.

I think #3 is nice if you have a lot of trust for your government. With the global rise in authoritarian values, I think many are very wary of this option, myself included. I think not only the points I brought up before need to be addressed, but there's also the fact that government services tend to not be... sub par.

The speed bump in option 2 isn't that big of a worry, right? Its the classic sotuation of once you are big enough to habe the problem, you are big enough to afford to solve it.

I think this is naive thinking. That transition can be some of the most difficult time for companies. Even for countries. Think of it analogous to the middle income trap. This usually isn't an issue for the people that are first to producing a product, but if you're building a competing product then it is a danger. Potentially. Of course there will be companies that succeed and I may be too conservative. But it is, I think, at least worth considering. Something to keep an eye on if you choose that route.