I assume everybody reads articles here yo. The authors proposition is spelled out "You say you value free speech and oppose social penalties for bad speech, but

I assume everybody reads articles here yo. The authors proposition is spelled out "You say you value free speech and oppose social penalties for bad speech, but your actions show that you don’t. You value free speech for you and people who agree with you and oppose social penalties for expressing things you agree with. You’re open to disagreement on some topics, sure, but when it comes to things that are important to you, social penalties for speech you identify as bad — such as “Bari Weiss sucks” — are not just acceptable, but good, something to be proud of, something to broadcast on a public forum so others know that you did it, encouraging them to do it too." but his arguement is actually my summary. But then my summary stands when he summarizes: "It's drawing the lines of socially acceptable expression" and claims an angry mob coming after you is indeed what the definition of free expression is and comes with the territory of a free society. My snarky Orwell comment still stands too with his "social penalties" newspeak.