As we’ve discussed before, that’s merely a convenient pretext, and the application of it — indeed, the description of it you have in the rules — makes it clear you hold different ideologies to different standards, because you censor in alignment with group biases.
In short, the guidelines say “if you don’t agree with us, and use the same rhetoric we do, you get banned”. That is ideological censorship: the thresholds for censorship are based on the speaker’s ideology.
I look forward to incoming rules about social media, where companies such as yours who benefit from safe harbor are required to provide an open public forum rather than engage in ideological discrimination.
Google, FB, et al use the same pretext as you, and are being investigated ahead of legislation on social media discrimination — due to their rampant ideological censorship masquerading ad decorum.
I hope to see you in court, once the ban on public forum discrimination passes.
- - - - -
> There's nothing wrong with anecdotes on HN.
This is also an outright dishonest reply to what I said.
You tolerate insulting and unsubstantive comments from yourself and others you agree with you wouldn’t tolerate from those you don’t.
You weren’t merely telling an anecdote: you were dismissing another poster’s experience based on your anecdote — something you routinely harp about when going the other ideological direction.
This is why they’re making new laws, biased censors like you.