The same problem accompanies definitions of "free speech." People may be interested in broadening the concept of free speech so that it shelters harassment, abuse, hate speech, and generally toxic behavior, and allows communities compatible with those behaviors to drive out communities incompatible with them, and effectively take over communication platforms. Some people even use "free speech" to mean creating automated twitter bots to intentionally push false news stories or reddit bots to manipulate vote totals for stories (this is admittedly an extreme view, but I have seen it expressed first hand by people who don't think it's extreme at all.)

Who gets to decide draw the line between the sincere desire for free speech, and extending the line to include disingenuous calls for "free speech" which are designed to shelter forms of toxic and manipulative behavior that people are just using as a tool to push their preferred ideology?