I'm a trained historian, so I can tell you this from a historical perspective: With many other previous technologies, we've seen companies attempt to have global standards for speech, but it has never worked. It's a distinction between.... For companies, it is cheaper to have one standard of content moderation, but in practice and in reality, we have never seen this function, for many of the reasons Professor Owen just mentioned.
It could, in fact, be dangerous because we could default to the authoritarian standard. It's not necessarily the highest standard of freedom of expression we would end up with. There are lots of reasons to end up with somewhat different regulations.
There are many things we can have standardized or aligned. We can think about this in a modular way. Maybe then things will realign with many other countries. We'd do this deliberately because it would be easier to regulate if we had, for example, the same standards of transparency as the European Union. The article you were referring to.... That was us trying to break down, a little, the idea that governance is all about content and that content could have national or regional particularities. Other aspects of regulation—whether it's transparency or data privacy—could be very much more aligned or more global.
That was just a bit of how, if I remember correctly, we were trying to break this down.