You've defined what you think free speech isn't, but can you define what free speech is, in your opinion?

Being able to speak without interference from the government. I also think there is a spirit of free speech where the consequences for your speech should not exceed the speech itself, though that is obviously less precise and kinda up to individual judgement

>Being able to speak without interference from the government.

Why should freedom of speech apply only to authorities from the public sector?

Because freedom of association cuts both ways.

I also dont like the power that massive corporations have over our lives, but the solution isnt some absurd regulation, its to break them up

>Because freedom of association cuts both ways.

What is freedom of association, isn't that different from freedom of speech?

>I also dont like the power that massive corporations have over our lives, but the solution isnt some absurd regulation, its to break them up

I think you're probably right about that. Maybe another option could be to create a publicly funded, rather than corporate advertising funded, "town square" social media platform as a viable alternative, where all lawful speech could be voiced and protected?