When enough users flag a post, it becomes both [flagged] and [dead]. I unkilled your submission—that is, I took off the [dead] marker and reopened it to new comments. But I did not turn off [flagged], because I agree with the users who flagged it—it's not an intellectually interesting post, it's meta drama.
I get that you're angry that our software killed some of your submissions and that I used the word 'promotional' to describe them. I've explained to you in detail why that happened and what you can do instead so that it doesn't happen in the future. Trying to turn this into a scandal about HN moderation and "censorship" isn't going to work, not because moderators are suppressing you but because the community doesn't support what you're saying. Even though you don't accept the explanations I've given you, most HN users do, and actually appreciate the fact that we've built systems to try to protect HN for its intended spirit of intellectual curiosity.
Re your previous post getting lots of upvotes: you can't go by upvotes alone (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). Indignation and sensationalism, to pick two examples of qualities that aren't good for HN, routinely attract tons of upvotes. This is a flaw of the voting system and is why we need countervailing mechanisms—such as user flags, moderator action, and software filters—to try to preserve HN for its intended spirit. If we didn't have those mechanisms, the front page would be filled with nothing but indignation, sensationalism, and a handful of the same hot topics over and over. That would be an entirely different forum. You can call this "censorship" if you want (people mostly use that word as a generic pejorative). I would call it something more like an immune system. Either way, it's governed by principles which I've explained to you repeatedly.
HN hosts tons of discussion that is critical of "big tech and social news in our lives". Nobody is trying to suppress such discussion. The issue is (a) article quality, and particularly whether an article fits HN's mandate or not (that is, whether it is intellectually interesting and can support a substantive discussion), and (b) whether an account is using HN as intended (for intellectual curiosity, involving a diverse range of topics) or just using it to get attention for its own stuff (which is what I'm referring to as promotional).
If you want to do better on HN, you need to make sure that the articles you're posting are intellectually interesting (that means to the community, not just to you; everyone thinks their own articles are interesting); and you need to diversify your submissions so the software doesn't classify you as promotional. Perpetuating endless disputes about moderation is not either of those things and isn't helping you, neither with us nor with the community. The community is being a lot harder on you here than I am.
Ok, thanks for the link. It turns out that we had a very long email conversation about this last year. One of the things I said in it was "You're not and have never been shadowbanned".
As I explained back then, your submissions were getting filtered by software based on the following site guideline: "Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff occasionally, but the primary use of the site should be for curiosity." When an account is using HN solely to submit its own stuff, our software interprets that as promotional. I gather that you disagree with this use of the word "promotional"—which is fair enough, but you seem to have forgotten all the lengthy explanations I sent you about exactly how our software works, why it works that way, and what you could do to stop being affected by it.
The bulk of this community, I'm pretty sure, agrees with us about moderating the site in this way. Why do I say that? Because that's why we wrote that software in the first place: community members kept telling us that they don't like it when accounts use HN solely to post their own material instead of participating in a more varied and curious way in the community. I don't believe most people here would agree with you that this is "silencing alternative viewpoints and subject matter that does not agree with HN moderators".
As for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30240159 (which is the current OP), it was killed because users flagged it. The reason users flagged it is no doubt the same as what I tried repeatedly to explain to you in the past: it's not using HN as intended.
By the way, the vast majority of users who email for help in such situations react very differently than you have: they are grateful for the clarification, understand how that software filter relates to the goals of the community (as expressed in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), and agree to use the site as intended. They don't create prolonged antagonistic exchanges by disputing every point and complaining that they are singled out for unfair treatment. They don't try to stir up drama on HN itself with dramatic posts about censorship and moderator abuse. They simply go on to use HN in the intended spirit, and the problem disappears.