Free speech, but authenticated to establish a backing of responsibility for truth.

I don't believe "free speech" can exist if there is an optimization for max accountability. You cannot say what you say. To simplify: You have to say that which you'll be least punished for saying. This isn't what most people think of when they think of "free speech" unless we also believe people in China under the social credit system have free speech as well.

I think it is a mistake (critical mistake) to market this sort of platform as being "free speech" friendly. It's not going to be there and I'll put myself on record for expressing the opinion that it cannot be considered that.

This is not to say that I'm saying we necessarily want to have free speech or that we should put emphasis on privacy but more to say that there is no such thing as "free speech" as a concept if there is no private communication. I'm putting forth the philosophical argument that only private speech (that which is optimized for minimum accountability) is considered to be "free" in the sense that the people communicating are allowed to communicate exactly what they really think or feel.

In interest in being balanced I think we have to be honest with the readers and admit that on a platform under this model they will have to watch what they say. It's in the interest of minimizing the damage people could cause to themselves. While your angle you present is in the interest is in minimizing the damage people cause to others (fraud, bullying, etc).