May I enquire why you censored me? I've noticed you doing this more and more with posts that don't agree with what I can only assume must be your point of view.

you've redefined "censored" there. HN is pretty clear about discouraging unhelpful comments, and your comment was definitely not useful. you can assume HN readers are relatively intelligent and understand that a conservative think tank promotes conservative opinions. you can't assume we all accept that as normatively evil.

Sorry this took a while to post. (Dang has already censored me in another way after a regrettable spat some months ago -- I can only submit about 5 posts a day.)

From wikipedia:

> Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

So no I used the word with it's correct meaning.

It's not a question of your comment alone but of the whole subthread. Surprising digressions are often ok on HN, but predictable digressions are tedious and not in the spirit of the site. They are non-intellectual-curiosity-gratifying. Of these, predictable ideological digressions are certainly the worst and usually go downhill the fastest. All this holds regardless of the view being advocated.

So the OP I replied to should have been the one you censored. That post was ideological. I highlighted it true but that doesn't change anything.

I don't agree. The commenter's description of personal experience made it a valuable contribution. It did not come across as primarily ideological, whereas yours did, plus was snarky—a particularly unwanted combination.

> It's not a question of your comment alone but of the whole subthread.

I'm not sure I understand. Did you censor this because of my comment or because of the thread?

The bigger issue is shilling...

I have a hard time reading that as a good-faith question.

> The bigger issue is shilling

Based on the data I see, I'm pretty sure that's false. But any user with specific concerns about astroturfing or shilling should email [email protected] with links. When we get an email like that we look for evidence, and when we find evidence we act on it.

> I have a hard time reading that as a good-faith question.

Well it was. I don't understand why you censored my OP. I clarified my point about the GP before you censored the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10447015. I've further clarified post-censorship https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10453441.

> Based on the data I see, I'm pretty sure that's false. But any user with specific concerns about astroturfing or shilling should email [email protected] with links. When we get an email like that we look for evidence, and when we find evidence we act on it.

This is in effect a non-policy. This is pseudonymous forum. Users don't have any evidence other than heuristics (i.e. what the poster actually writes). Given that you don't accept that as evidence they have no possibility to raise serious questions unless there is blaringly obvious mistake on the shill's part.

EDIT Would the downvoter like to pitch in and actually contribute?

> I don't understand why you censored my OP. I clarified my point about the GP before you censored the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10447015. I've further clarified post-censorship

That's a high word count on "censor", but I'm not sure what else there is to say.

> This is in effect a non-policy.

It sounds like you've misunderstood. Anyone with suspicions about astroturfing is welcome to email us; it's we who have the data and will look for evidence. What's not allowed is groundless accusation of other users in HN comments.