I think the rise of a well headed, free speech space is extremely important. The US has reached a point where certain topics are not even up for debate, as ruled by the court of twitter mob.
The only real difference that I can see (other than the speed of communication) is that advocating some positions that were supported by an overwhelming majority of public voices 70 years ago will now make a vocal proportion of people see you as a bad person, and if you work for a company who wishes to appeal to those people, maybe get you fired.
It's not even possible to create a "free speech space" where attributed comments will not result in judgment, other than by creating new protected classes for people who say racist, sexist, or homophobic things. Of course, if the state takes a position that those things are worth special protection, while expressing a negative opinion on (for example) the K-pop boy band BTS wouldn't be and could still get you fired or denounced, that's pretty terrifying.
edit: I guess the main difference is that everybody is publishing, now. Once, you couldn't publish unless you agreed with the people who owned the presses, and nothing you said would be reacted to except by other people who owned presses. It gave the impression that the ideas that were held by the most privileged were more secure than they actually were. I think that through internet centralization, we'll be back there soon, and since the presses are still owned by the same people, the world will start to look familiar again.
Presses weren't all that uncommon -- every town could have its own paper, maybe more than one. In the 20th century there were also typewriters, carbon paper, photocopiers, physical bulletin boards, open town squares, letters to the editor, subscription hand-mailed newsletters, ...
[1] Chatting with avatars that can navigate in a 3D digital environment, with or without an actual VR headset. That's just like the eponymous VRChat which allows 2D users to interact with 3D users and vice-versa. I highly recommend trying it. It's free and the worlds are beautiful. https://vrchat.com/
Think about the really controversial tweets that garner thousands of responses. What if there was a link next to the tweet that launched you into a virtual lounge where you can interact with other people looking to discuss the tweet? If someone who joins one of those groups wants to summarize their thoughts and conclusions from the discussion afterwards, in an async format, their response would indicate which discussion group that they were in. It would also be bundled with posts from other users in the same discussion group. It would be like "Twitter meets Reddit meets VRChat."
I could see it being useful as something of an intermediate between traditional online video games and offline gatherings involving food & boardgames. I don't see it being used as a primary mode of communication though, for the simple reason that it demands too much time and attention. Text messages and email occupy that space because it's so convenient to pick up and drop them at any time, even with a half-read message or a half-written reply. With VR that means putting on your gear every time, and resuming the "VR video" or whatever.
Heck, tons of people complain when video talks are posted without slides/transcripts. They want the information. They don't care about any other aspects of the presentation. VR in that case just seems to be more distracting stuff that gets in the way of the information.
On the one hand, I don't care much about rich and/or prominent people getting served online, when they promote toxic behavior.
On the other hand, I don't like this fake ally culture either. I believe most allys are in for social signaling and to improve their status, and not because they really care about the issues at hand.
And I'm torn.
If I tear down a fascist because it was also my competitor, how good or bad am I?