(I've been censored by the majority, or at least some people. My first comment fine, it was hyperbole but I like flair and more importantly I stand by my opinion on the issue and I think a quick perusal through business headlines will bear me out. But my approach was strong, I felt my reaction matched the outrageousness of the OP's comment, but I may have been wrong about that, I am certainly looking at that possibility.
(But for the subsequent comments which I made I ask you to consider whether this system is working when it blocks actual dissenting opinion rather than trolling which this most certainly is not. Certainly people may not like the opinions and my dissent from what may be more widespread views, but as I understand that's not the purpose of this rating system.)
Look, we can sit here and argue semantics or we can get out a dictionary. I did, did you? How about responding to my question rather than something inaccurate.
The broadest definition of censorship is the suppression of expression, which hasn't happened. (The standard definition requires govt activity.)
In other words, this is yet another example of you mis-stating things and doubling down when that's pointed out. You then retreat to baseless emotional pleas.
You'd like a good argument and there are good arguments. However, that doesn't imply that any of said good arguments apply to your situation.
WRT the the "purpose" of HN's rating system and whether you're being unfairly treated, PG seems to think that it's working just fine. An appeal to authority is valid in this case because HN is his playpen. No, it doesn't matter how you think that the HN rating system works.
(But for the subsequent comments which I made I ask you to consider whether this system is working when it blocks actual dissenting opinion rather than trolling which this most certainly is not. Certainly people may not like the opinions and my dissent from what may be more widespread views, but as I understand that's not the purpose of this rating system.)