You've misread the claim.
Which is partially on me, of course, but also not.
The statement was that it's not a real (primarily as in credible, relevant. Actually real also an aspect but not the primary one) person.
There could technically be a human behind it, just like Jia Tan could've been a human. But for judging the input, that is irrelevant and misleading.
The biggest problem reality is facing is that people's consensus operates on "having every voice heard", which is good in a small village, but terrible in a globalized internet.
And thus, if we want to keep "every voice needs to be heard", we need to reclassify "voice" and "real" not just on "has cells".
That's the mental shorthand I operate on, which I should have resolved down fully to make it work with "normal" people's brains. Regrettably.