I think your definition would make the word violence less useful. Your definition removes what makes violence a unique and useful word, i.e. that it involves physical force with the intent to hurt someone.

There are better, more accurate, words to use than violence.

Quick note: I'm reading your post in the most charitable light and giving you the benefit of the doubt, a less charitable reading would be that you're ok knowingly coopting a word because along with it comes a whole host of legal and ethical implications that you want to bring to bear on something that you don't like and you know that it isn't violence. I don't think you are doing this but noting it for others that may be.

I can see where you are coming from. I went along with that word choice because it does a good job of capturing the severity of the harm, which I think is important. I'm sure there is a better word. Perhaps my sibling comment's suggestion of "abusive" is a good one. Something like "very harmful", while potentially suitable, feels rather vague and uninspiring.

Yes, for example, abuse.

Many programs could be seen as a form of violence if you're forced to go through with them.

Ok, imagine your introvert friend was somehow persuaded to voluntarily go through said program. How would feel about that?

People do this all the time. Look at Toastmasters. Now, forcing someone that was highly introverted to go to Toastmasters would not be a nice thing to do. Strongly pressuring them to go when they didn't want to would also not be very nice, but that doesn't mean that Google should ban the Toastmasters app.

Living in a free society means that not everyone has the same ideas about values or psychology or religion. These things will be debated long after we're all dead. Until every disagreement is resolved, the best solution we've come up with is tolerance. If someone is doing something voluntarily that's not significantly hurting you, even if you don't think it's a good idea for them, you're usually better off shutting up and ignoring it.

The last people I want making these decisions is the company that makes my mobile phone operating system for god's sake.

Not good, nor would I feel good about them going through this LGBT 'conversion' app. But I'd feel even worse about helping further normalize corporate censorship.

Fair enough, that is entirely different question. I didn't intend to make any implications about that. I should have made that more clear.

> Imagine being forced to go through a "introvert deconversion" program where you have to read essays and do exercises that are designed to "help" you become an extrovert

There are such programs and exercises. They are just not called that.

You snipped out the part about treating the introversion as a shameful, perverted thing.

You've never seen an introvert get bullied just because they were introverted?

Yes, I have. I'm not sure how that is relevant? I was pointing out how the commenter was ignoring a very key part of my argument.