Before you claim silencing opposing views, you should at least have some examples and show some proof that it's not the users flagging or down voting.
Ps. Flagged this because the title is too suggestive and shows/suggests bad faith.
Ps. Flagged this because the title is too suggestive and shows/suggests bad faith.
Not possible to do using any normal means, of course. So, not a very useful hoop to ask somebody to jump through.
But I can testify that although I've never been abusive, I seem to be in an indefinite extreme rate-limiting and shadowban status. I'd link to my innocuous posts for proof, but... they are hidden from you by the shadowbanning system. ...And I'd like to respond to you right now, but I'm being rate-limited.
Is this your daily experience with HN, having your posts hidden from others and having to try to post your comments ten times over a period of several hours? If not, I suggest you are not fully aware of the level of suppression on HN.
If you want to be not rate limited, you'll have to contact HN. They will fix it for you, but not if you continue past behavior.
Since that's probably what got you rate limited in the first place.
Obviously complaining about moderation while doing unwanted behavior ( and eg. using other accounts to circumvent) and trying to post here and blame it as a community concern will not help you.
If you're genuinely looking for an answer 5/7 of your submission history is your COVID stance. Not that this topic doesn't come up on HN, it does, but it's obviously not what the site is or is supposed to be about 70% of the time. There is no singular post to point at and say "shaddowbannable" rather a collective history of things that probably got flagged by users until it either automatically kicked in or triggered a manual review which said "yep, that's not really the primary topic here".
If COVID isn't the primary topic here, then let's auto-flag all the propaganda about it coming from the likes of the NYT and Washington Post. If talking about that stuff is allowed, then... let me talk about it. I didn't want to talk about it -- users did, until I started explaining views they found jarring, at which point they flagged me into the dungeon (or whatever, I don't know exactly how it works, not that it matters).
You see what's happening. You see how this actually works. They talk about it, I respond, HN puts me in the dungeon while maintaining a facade that HN is some kind of ultra curiosity zone. Such BS.
If we all flag off-topic content and submit on topic content the ratio and discussions will actually get better. If we focus our accounts on replying to such content constantly it doesn't negate the problematic content it increases the amount.
It's an online forum. Nothing more, nothing less.
Oh, I've talked with dang a few times. Are you actually able to point to any bad behavior of mine? As far as I can tell, I've been put in the doghouse for having wrong opinions. At the very same time, HN tries to maintain the mythology that it was necessary to suppress me because of my lack of curiosity, when in fact I seem to be suppressed due to the typical HN user's lack of curiosity. Isn't the practice of suppressing people for having wrong opinions exactly what we need to be talking about?