> this “network of networks”, the free and open online world envisioned by early pioneers is under attack

This is a dire topic. But I think we have it backwards when we consider the "network of networks" as a high-level construct (social, economic, etc.) like for instance we refer to "factories" or "catering delivery".

I think we need to take a big step back to first principles and build up our model piece by piece based on the simplest facts.

The "network of networks", be it neutral, is a 'dumb medium', like air. It just is, does, period. It does not filter, think, it just transmits whatever. Like air conveys sound, like we breathe it, air is air and does what air does. You do not restrict the medium, it makes no sense (object does not implement that method!), rather you confine it, you limit its flow.

This is even before "the public thing", a Respublica, for we have no choice but to share the same air on this planet. For now, at least.

Enter the other component, physically a ground or "territory", in network terms "zones", for lack of a better term — a set of rule-defined network spaces, a 'country' in networkland.

Enter segregated spaces and filtering (in/out, gates and windows, gatekeeping, restricted areas, walls, etc). Essentially "buildings" from a physical standpoint. These things are 'private', removed from the 'public' space.

This is my LAN, this is Facebook, this is every "network" in the "network of networkS". When you 'enter' that private space, you are bound to the rules of the tenant. Just like you would at a friend's place, at Disneyland, at work and in the streets of your country. Rules, everywhere, that you are bound to follow if you roam the space they define. Cross some border — property, city, country — and other rules define another space.

Now we have arrived at the "high level" view of internet, from a solid model based on first principles. As we hit www.something.com or rather www.someone.com, we leave the neutral medium of air, we leave the public space of whatever country/city we're in, and we join a new space with someone's rules.

Now think about it: why do people go to Disneyland with their children? why do they watch Netflix Kids with them? Because they like the rules in those places, they embrace the values of whoever rules over there, enough to spend time and money —the only two resources at the end of the day.

And there is exactly where the debate about "what should platform X do" should take place: as we would regulate private spaces opened to the public.

A complex aspect of "social media" and the policing of speech online comes from the fact that most platforms are now serving two entirely different sectors in one: physically, we had the press — but that's one way, paper/radio/TV— and we had communication — landline or mobile phones, post letters, fax; but in the virtual world, we are now consuming information from the press (and countless other types) and communicating mostly in the same place. Thus you can't regulate Facebook exclusively as either the communication sector or the media/press sector; you need to consider it from both angles. It's a complex topic, likely to require dismantling old agencies and creating new ones more adequate, more fitting the problem space.