That's absurd. Speech doesn't cease to be speech because you don't like its effects. If I defraud your grandmother I'll be using speech to do it, even if that speech is legally culpable.
But its effects are controlled by the creators of poal, not by the people. In this virtual space it means something more than just expressing your opinion against or for an idea.
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
(post is archived)