It seems like the powerful around the world are competing with each other to see who can censor and control the internet the most. And of course they all, to the last man, claim it is for the benefit of the people.
Down voting things you disagree with despite being well articulated (in fact because they are well articulated) is a form of censorship here.
But of course it goes much further when shadowbanning is deployed to enforce the narrow and rigid views of the moderation team.
Yes, I know pointing this out means it will now happen to me.
Nothing a censor hates more than thwarting the narrative they are trying to enforce.
But that’s why you think it doesn’t happen here. This is the most harshly and hypocritically cultivated walled garden on the Net. (Moderators violate their own rules regularly with impunity.)
Alas, I cannot abide not pointing out these abuses.
Very rarely are they well written or polite.
I have yet to see well presented, civil, arguments censored. I have however seen entire threads criticizing HN and YCombinator staff, by name, be left alone.
You can notice this more obviously if you watch new, that certain topics reach and get to the front page VERY RAPIDLY and stay there, while others are flagged or fall off with prejudice. I'm not sure I'd call it a huge problem, and the parent post is probably a bit hyperbolic, (Certainly I give the mods benefit of the doubt, even though I've gently disagreed with dang via comment prior) but it's definitely present.
In fact a good way to think critically about things you hear is to ask “how is the politician profiting from this law?” And noting what new powers the law gives government.
If government “needs” more power with the justification of “helping people”, it may be the case that helping people is just the excuse.
Government power is easy to monetize: threaten industry with worse regulations but forget the idea when you get campaign contributions, etc.