Those who tread on the values, interests, or safety of enough people will find certain kinds of cooperation are withdrawn. Technical solutions to this problem are difficult if not impossible, and it's quite possible they should be, because they'd likely involve the privilege to tread on the values, interests, or safety of enough people and/or compelling the cooperation of people who don't want to cooperate. And "Free speech" is not the right to compel people to repeat or carry someone else's speech.
I just finished _Kingdom of Nauvoo_, which is about an early Mormon civic experiment in 19th century Illinois. Mormon history in the US is interesting; you can read it as it's regularly presented in the LDS church, a narrative of a persecuted religious minority hounded at every attempt to settle somewhere. Nauvoo was the "well, we'll build our own city, where we'll use municipal law + state politics to make sure we're self-governed and don't have to answer to other people" stage (before moving on to the "well, we'll build our own state far enough away from anybody else we won't have answer to other people" stage and settling the US mountain west).
You can also read in Mormon history a kind of tragic insistence on supremacy of values and interests. You might make your neighbors mildly nervous by saying "the kingdom of God is at hand and our faith will inherit/run everything." You'll make your neighbors more nervous and upset if you do that and vote as a bloc under religious direction, granting the religious leaders enormous political power / influence. You'll make your neighbors very upset indeed if you wield municipal courts you created to rule that no other court proceedings can hold you accountable when you're charged with a crime.
What human being doesn't insist their values (and sometimes even interests) are supreme? Most of us naturally believe our value systems are superior, for Reasons™, some better examined than others, but all founded in the naturally self-confident convictions arising from places difficult to introspect about. But every value system that insists it shouldn't have to deal with the trouble of encountering or accounting for tension with others carries with it inevitable conflict.
The modern period of democratic nation states have afforded an unusual amount of peace and freedom because we've tried to carve out maximal personal autonomy while providing institutions for mediating conflict. In this situation, individual rights and autonomy are maintained in part because no individual rights and autonomy are absolute. It's a balance, not a simple banner.
The Internet is people, and cooperation with people. Certain kinds of non-cooperation -- no matter how burning the conviction behind them, and in fact often magnified by the conviction -- will call forth non-cooperation in response.