> You had the protected right to distribute the thing you printed, it's called freedom of press

But you couldn't, for instance, gain access to private premises or gatherings to do so, or force them into people's hands. You could (and still can) hand them out on the streets. Marconi was never obliged to broadcast it on his radio systems.

> There's a reason why those freedoms were enshrined to constitution and not just left undefined.

And they aren't under threat.

> And i m not sure why you keep bringing up twitter

You mentioned it first, if you go upthread - "build your own twitteR", so I presumed that platform was primarily your concern. It certainly seems to be one that's copping a lot of heat for deplatforming lately, mostly around election denial, Q etc.

> a) protected from complete deplatforming by providing them a publicly-funded alternative

I mean, nobody is completely deplatformed at the moment. There are choices up to and including building your own pages. What if nobody uses the publicly funded alternative, because it's crap? No problem is solved, people relegated to that public platform would still be shouting into the void.

> b) should be always able to keep the audience they acquired by themselves

If they do so on a commercial platform, which they joined because it already had a critical mass of people, I don't believe you can say they acquired them all themselves.

You seem to be arguing there for a federated system - might be worth your while looking into Mastodon.