I didn't particularly like either one. GPT starts off with clarity that it is Twitter's challenge, not a general discussion, which I'm not sure was your point. Actually, I'm not sure what your purpose was in either case, so that probably just follows.
Neither one acknowledges the weakness of the argument - it's simply false that most speech is permitted in almost any large private forum. There's both explicitly forbidden speech, and speech that is socially punished (by other users). Also, most venues are not take-it-or-leave it at a fine-grained level - you can leave entirely (as you can Twitter), or you can accept their bundle of speech that the venue and community allows).
I do find this one generally better, since I think the overall discussion is not that novel and so doesn't need such long explanation. That said, it did lose a key justification from the other post, that Twitter's size makes it akin to the public square, which is why this kind of rule is necessary to contemplate.
I noticed that the original version chat-gpt suggested made it sound like all users would be banned from replying to non-followers, not just those who would be banned. I told it to clarify, and it did, but that highlights one of the risks of relying on chat-gpt - you have to proof read very carefully.
I asked chat GPT to sharpen up my post A simple proposal for preserving free speech on twitter. It responded with a much shorter post. I decided that I preferred my longer exposition, so kept it, but I'm interested in an unbiased opinion of whether I made a mistake, and a shorter, snappier, but less detailed post would have been better so that I know for the future.
Here's the rewrite: