> Try bringing a leftist point of view on a right wing site, the Heritage foundation, or the American government.
I do not doubt, as I pointed out explicitly, that right-wing bubbles exist. They just don't exist anywhere typical HN reader would find themselves. They do not exist, in particular, anywhere in Silicon Valley, and can not exist. Of course they would exist on a Trump rally or in Trump's White House maybe (I hope not, but who knows).
> Breitbart, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh etc control the talk show airwaves
Err, what? Those people control nothing but their own private channels. None of them can deplatform a leftist radio show. Facebook or Twitter, or a typical campus administration, can easily deplatform a right-wing person or group, and did so many times. Can you spot the difference? It's like I can ban you from my private home, and you can chase me out of the city - who has more power here?
> there's not a single strong liberal voice in any media that has the sway or clout of any of those that I mentioned
Of course, nobody expects to find a lot of liberals on Rush Limbaugh show or conservatives on Rachel Maddow show. The problem is not single shows, but whole platforms and whole branches (like political science or sociology) become ideologically homogenous. If one family lives in one house, it's not a diversity problem, there are other houses. If the whole large city is just one family, now you have a problem.
> The people leaving to form their own groups are generally people who support white nationalism.
If you are going to confuse right wing with white nationalism, I'd decide you failed the Turing test and discussion with you is pointless until you educate yourself at least about the basics of US politics. Free lesson: white nationalists are tiny minority of the right wing, just like leninists are minority of the left wing (probably the latter minority is larger than the former one).
> Reddit has groups that literally function as attack dogs silencing any group that speaks ill of the president
Judging from my last visit to Reddit, couple of days ago, these groups are piss poor at their job, as there is nobody in mortal fear of criticizing the president and lots of people continue to criticize him without any problem. Which, of course, as it should be.
> To suggest that there is "good evidence" that the left is censoring the right is plain silly
Only if you arrived at predetermined conclusion and intend to declare "silly" any evidence that contradicts it.
> What's being censored is things that don't belong in a workplace,
If you think that by shifting the goalposts and calling things that disagree with your ideological positions "hate speech", "unfit for workplace", "don't belong in civil discourse" and so on, you are somehow making your argument stronger - I am sorry, you are not. Ideological censorship remains the same, whatever fig leaf you put on it.
> most people don't want to read conspiracy theories, hate speech, and abuse on a daily basis
On most social networks - including Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. - it is extremely easy to not read content that you don't want to read. Deplatforming does not prevent you from reading it - it prevents everybody from reading it, and the purpose of it not to avoid encountering content that you don't like but prevent that content from reaching people who do like it.
> usually because they follow the letter to break the spirit of any rules.
And, of course, since the letter of the rules does not mean anything, and those in power are always free to interpret "the spirit" of the rules as they want, the result is unlimited arbitrary power, not constrained by any rules. Which corrupts exactly as it always did.