Earlier quoted context omitted.
You broke the site guidelines badly with this comment. We've had to warn you about that multiple times before. If you keep this up, we're going to have to ban you. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this going forward.
Rephrasing the beginning of this comment: When you write this, questions come into my mind like: "does this person have a vested interest they're not disclosing?", "How much is this person getting paid to defend Amazon?" and "Are others also able to see through the smoke and mirrors of this person's arguments?". I honestly do not have another explanation for your comment. I think the important part of the article tha…
HN hosts plenty of discussion about harmful ways in which big tech companies may or may not be shaping society. That's one of the major themes here. You don't need me to hold any particular view about it or be in a bubble or not be in a bubble—what matters is how the community functions. Is there full and open discussion of those issues on HN? Certainly there is. (Maybe not as much as the partisans of the topic would prefer, but that's true of the partisans of any topic.)
Your rewrite of your comment that I scolded just rephrases it in the third person. That still breaks the guidelines because you're still insinuating astroturfing and bad faith in the other person. Unless you have some independent evidence you can point to, you're not justified in making that insinuation and you can't do that on HN. This has nothing to with suppressing particular views—casting gratuitous aspersions on another user just because you disagree with them is not a view. It would be exactly the same if your opinion and their opinion were reversed. In fact I don't even know what your opinions are or what you're disagreeing about—I don't have to know that in order to know that your comment broke the guidelines. Important btw: when I say 'you' I don't mean to pick on you personally. This is a very common pattern, which is one reason we have to moderate it.
I appreciate your intention to be compassionate.
I don't disagree with your politics; I don't know what your politics are, nor do I want to. If at some point I gathered that information from one of your comments, I instantly forgot it. When there's a username whose politics I know all about, that's a bad sign, regardless of what their politics happens to be, because it means that politics occupies much too high a proportion of their comments here. (See https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... about that.)
"Is it okay to drown out some voices?" I don't know what that question is referring to. When people break the site guidelines we moderate them, and when they do it too much we ban them. Is that drowning out their voice? Their "voice" doesn't come with any need to break the guidelines in the first place. From my perspective, the reason we ban people is orthogonal to "voice". But it's certainly common, when we ban someone, that they claim that we're drowning them out though (or censoring them, or what have you) because we secretly disagree. That's not true, and it's an explanation people resort to when they don't want to take responsibility for what they posted. It's not as if it's hard to avoid getting banned here.