To be clear, though, you are arguing about regulating speech. Your attempt to redefine the meaning speech is unconvincing.
If you want to regulate speech, then actually explain why the area you want to prohibit or regulate needs it. I gave an example of speech which few people would disagree should be punished, namely fraud. I didn't say fraud isn't speech as though some magical quality removed it from the category.
It may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but it's an important distinction. Redefining words to win creates a slippery slope where nothing is ever secure. Actually addressing an issue clearly and forthrightly should serve to contain the problem without leading to the cure spreading such that it is worse than the disease.
Yea I see what you're saying.
I'm really trying to argue that if your upvotes and downvotes are not simply you expressing your opinion, but are actually mechanisms for getting people banned, or shadowbanned or whatever, then you should not really say regulation of it is anti-free speech
I agree with you.
As for a good solution, it honestly is a bit of a conundrum. It definitely gives an metric for people's opinions, which is a form of speech. The problem is giving it more power than that, and the quickly becomes a complex discussion.
But given Poal's stated view on the proper use of the downvote, I don't see why they don't just get rid of it and replace it with a Report Spam button. As it is it appears to serve no other purpose than to punish downvoters if the admin (or his algorithm) doesn't agree a post is spam. It has the feel of a risk/reward strategy for teaching an obedient dog.
[edit: also this discussion caused me to vote Maybe, since it is a complex subject, hard to resolve with a yes/no vote]
(post is archived)