I think most people try to minimize visibility and impact of speech they don't agree with in whatever little part of the world they have influence over by e.g.

I think most people try to minimize visibility and impact of speech they don't agree with in whatever little part of the world they have influence over by e.g. verbalizing disagreement and counter arguments; not inviting people they strongly disagree with to things; not hiring them; not recommending their business; not letting them get near their kids; down voting; 1 star reviews; suggesting others do the same; embellishing stories to paint them in a more negative light. People in government positions can do all that legally, maybe with a few extra things to tip-toe around, but not much. Protests aren't really a government provided platform, they're more a natural gathering of people that the government is explicitly forbidden from breaking up by using their extraordinary powers. Somehow, they are allowed to get in the way by requiring permits, but worse, they can and do use tactics to escalate protests into something where they can legally use those powers. Individuals can use a similar tactics e.g. instigate someone to take a swing at them so they can claim self-defense. Even though I'm the one that brought up government hosted platforms for open speech, now that I think about it, the only example I can really think of is maybe town hall meetings. Knowing what a mess those can be, maybe that's why the government has been smart enough to not start hosting open online forums.