"IF you support free speech, you have to upvote things that make you angry."
I disagree. Upvoting is comparable to buying a product on Hive. I shouldn't buy a Buhanka because I hate it. I should stick with the F350 4x4 with the 7.3L turbodiesel I like. However, encouraging mass adoption is the same thing as supporting free speech, and to encourage more traffic I should buy more vehicles, or subsidize their purchase (since I can only drive one, to increase traffic I need more drivers, not just more parked vehicles), including Buhankas, because some retards like them for some reason. Not voting on something isn't disapproving of free speech. DV'ing something just because you don't like it and don't want people to say it is disapproving of free speech, like taxing Buhanka sales would cause fewer of them on the roads. Reducing Buhankas also reduces traffic by pushing away Buhanka drivers, and some drivers in the pool of potential traffic I affect won't drive anything else. Upvotes, or subsidizing sales, increases traffic, Downvotes, or taxing sales, decreases traffic, but no vote or impact on sales at all does neither.
These effects are regardless of my support for people to pick whatever they want to drive, which is support for free speech in this example. It is that subjective valuation of preferred vehicles that is curative, that promotes popular speech we want to see more of. That is an entirely different purpose than seeking to increase traffic.
Do you really support Buhankas if you don't buy one?
You won't have evidence, beyond saying you support them, unless you buy one.
Just having drivers brave enough to drive such an ugly van is not reason enough, if you are Buhanka supporting?
source
There is a difference in my purpose to increase traffic than some purpose to support Buhankas. Increasing traffic may require me to support ugly Buhankas because silly people won't drive anything else, and I won't increase the traffic with those people except I support Buhankas.