The real question here is defining "public square" legally.
Mobile phones utilize IP networks (VoLTE or voice over data networks), so dialtone 2.0 becomes an easy option with domestic network protocols as well.
ESIM is about to change dynamics as well, so any use of a phone number/SMS/2FA for identity verification is rendered null with the current system in place.
https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2019/10/sim-swap-sc...
Domestic networking protocols and dialtone 2.0 easily address most ransomware, malware, SPAM, etc much easier than trying to police 3rd world countries.
That severe limitation of regulating 3rd world countries is also the same argument with climate change. The can continue to regulate their own soverign borders.
Almost none of them in competent jurisdictions even attempt to define spam with an eye towards balancing against free speech.
Here's the Canadian jurisdiction against SPAM: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-1.6/index.html
> An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act (S.C. 2010, c. 23)
> Unsolicited electronic messages 6 (1) It is prohibited to send or cause or permit to be sent to an electronic address a commercial electronic message unless
> (a) the person to whom the message is sent has consented to receiving it, whether the consent is express or implied; and
> (b) the message complies with subsection (2).
And here's the European jurisdiction against SPAM: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
> Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications)
> Unsolicited communications 1. The use of automated calling systems without human intervention (automatic calling machines), facsimile machines (fax) or electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing may only be allowed in respect of subscribers who have given their prior consent.
Imagine there have a platform run as you suggest and I don't like what you're saying on it: I flood you and anyone that supports you with not-quite-illegal abuse, misinformation, non-sense, spam, false flag support from people with deplorable views. Copy-cats of you that take your positions but weakly argued or with a touch of added genocide. At the end of the day almost no one will see what you wrote, and most of those that do will think you're probably a kook with deplorable views (since that's what you're surrounded with).
Censorship that works by outright blocking speech is a largely outmoded concept in a world where communications networks connect every one to everyone else. In such a world flooding with noise that undermines the conversations people want to have and undermines their willingness to attempt the conversations is a more effective tool to censor communications. Outright blocking isn't very effective, unless it's done secretly, because people will route around it and plugging leaks is extremely hard (requiring essentially AI complete filtering).
As such, censorship is now essentially its own opposite.
This means there really are no magical silver bullets. We ought to stop pretending that private spaces are public squares though-- though this is a problem offline too: with eminent domain being used to seize land and create giant privately owned open air shopping malls in many places... but at least offline doesn't have the same scaling properties that make it so easy to censor by inundating with noise.
But I honestly don't understand this whole argument. Twitter is a social network, you just need to only receive messages from your network or "friends of a friend".
You can't have both a global network and get offended given the multitude of opinions and laws in the world.
The problem seems to be less that people are offended by something, but that some people don't want other people to even be exposed to some thoughts. Some paternalistic higher-than-though attitude.
Even taking at face value what you just said, it doesn't logically follow that if having one or more places like 4chan is just fine, having online venues be like 4chan would be just fine as well.
4chan is actually heavily moderated. It may just not be legible to you because they're not removing the stuff you're expecting but different stuff instead.
There are factors like topicality, being small sized, or being highly ephemeral which make moderation easier or lower amounts more viable-- but twitter is pretty weak in those respects, sadly-- I think that's how it manages to both have a reputation for being toxic and overly moderated.
Working fine at doing what? Emulating a thousand typing monkeys? Arguing that 4chan has some form of working discourse and rherefore everything should be like it is like arguing there is still some message at the end in the childrens game "silent mail" and therefore it should replace all methods of communication.
Don't get me wrong, there probably even is some sort of use in the existence of something like 4chan (I bet some sociology doctorate has written about the function of the platform for certain demographic parts of the population for example).
But there is probably a reason why you are discussion this topic here on HN instead of over there. And if I guess, this reason has all to do with you being able to have better, cleverer and more informed discussion here, than over there and is not at all hindered by the fact that the HN moderation would cut your voice off if you just pressed the right (wrong) buttons.
Some form of moderation is always better for discussion than none at all, unless you are making some sort of social experiment.
It's already hard enough to keep up with the laws in software.