I completely agree with that - yet, I am not sure if the underlying problem is really about the sort of linguistic differentiation like the one you proposed.
Maybe it’s a matter of how the above-mentioned terms or concepts are used and implicitly understood in different languages - I don’t know where you are from, but from a German perspective I would even argue that “opinion” is the weakest term as compared to its alternatives.
The term “view”, I think, is a much stronger one as it directs our attention to an important challenge which becomes even more clear when we think of its more precise synonyms like point of view or standpoint: I adhere to a certain interpretation of whatever (political, religious, social, …) problem because I stand at a certain point: this is a geographical metaphor that makes clear that I see things from a different angle because I am looking at them from a different location than my counterpart. In order to enter public discourse, it is essential to explicitly illustrate from where exactly one is looking at the problem in question. This means, any kind of discourse only becomes possible at all when we make clear where we come from (both to ourselves and to our counterparts). I can be of a certain opinion (sic!) because of personal experience or because I concerned myself with scientific/fact-based evidence or because of selfish interests (or maybe even altruistic interests).
When I enter into communication and my background of arguing is personal experience, then I should be aware of that - which means that I simultaneously become aware that the experience of others (that is, their “standpoint”) most probably differs from mine; only then can I learn to acknowledge other “opinions”. In the end, the resulting discourse is no longer about differing opinions, but about differing experiences. Same is true for the category of “interest”.
If my background, however, might be scientific evidence, here again the resulting discourse finally should become not one about our differing opinions but one about possible ways to solve an underlying problem.
In the end, you can call it “taste”, “preference”, “view” or “opinion” - I think that doesn’t really matter. What matters is rather the fact that all of them build on a specific background (experience, knowledge, interest, etc.) and only when specifying these backgrounds discourse becomes possible in the first place. In contrast, discourse is not possible when we just articulate an opinion while at the same time not basing it on a “because …”. This is what is meant by “arguing” - without arguments there is nothing to exchange. What I am trying to say is: the problem, in my view, is not that public discourse is somehow contaminated in many regards (and yes, it is!) but that, very often, there actually is no discourse at all. And this, perhaps, might be because the word “opinion” is all too often interpreted against the background of the term “freedom of opinion” - where “freedom” is often misinterpreted as the right to “say whatever I want” without having to justify anything.
People working with obsidian or any other similar app or approach are doing exactly this: we interconnect different experiences, arguments, facts etc. and, based on that, we develop our views (or opinions) and write them down. But in today’s public “discourse” the problem, I think, is not as you say that many people “present views as opinions” but that many people are not aware anymore that an opinion should be presented as a “view(point)” in order to make real communication possible…
Maybe this (philosophical) discussion is senseless and maybe it even doesn’t differ from what you were trying to say… But your comment provoked a couple of thoughts in my mind I wanted to share. As I am currently working as a teacher for politics and ethics, I am on a daily basis confronted with the problem that what we really unlearned is maybe rather how to “argue” - if I am giving my 16 year old pupils a task like “Discuss the following statement”, many of them just reply with “I agree because xyz” (xyz = the literal repetition of the statement they actually were prompted to discuss… ).