>I will say this shows the conversation hasn’t been had.

It has been had. But you seem to require some objectively correct and universally agreed upon consensus that will never exist.

>Moderation is most often achieved by the use of censorial powers on private platforms.

"censorial powers on private platforms" are and have been acceptable since the dawn of mass communications. Even Ben Franklin when he ran a newspaper refused to run stories he considered too libelous (although he just as often ran such stories, exercising personal bias in his decisions.) The entire rationale behind the First Amendment is that it binds the government from interfering with free expression, because that right belongs to the people, implicit as it is in the concept of the marketplace of ideas, and freedom of association.

Again, the conversation has been had, and the matter has been settled at least for most people. That the current regime disagrees doesn't prove anything any more than disagreement with anything else. People disagree that the world is round, that doesn't mean the matter is still in dispute beyond a reasonable doubt.

>and people who were enforcing private rules are now in a category of applicants that I assume includes criminals and enemies of the state.

If they commit crimes, have them arrested for those crimes. If they violate TOS (even if they happen to be a sitting President), ban them. Otherwise even criminals and traitors have the same rights as everyone else. Again, this is well established and shouldn't be controversial.

> If it is an acceptable role, then it must be done well. > If it is an unacceptable criminal role, then it must be prohibited well.

what kind of force is "must" implying here, and how is "well" being defined?

We do have legal frameworks in place intended to do what you're proposing, but people are imperfect and may make mistakes or act in ways you might consider to be in error, without falling afoul of criminality. But that's acceptable. We don't abandon rights because they can't be defined or defended perfectly.

You’re trying to turn the “conversation” into some abstract intangible thing, but a very real conversation will be had over this in the near future, and it will be in bad faith given the current state of affairs. The first question that will be asked is “what right do you have to be able to post online anonymously?”. Other ones will come in the form of “they can already track you anyways so why not allow everyone to see?”, and “the government can’t stop you posting online, not a 1A violation, so whats wrong with everyone seeing who you are or being able to prove you are who you say you are?”.