Shine on you crazy diamonds!
The point of debate here is how to divide moderation from censorship.
I'd argue that size and power matter most. How you moderate is a technicality. It makes the difference between good and bad moderation, but it doesn't make the difference between moderation and censorship. This article's tips might make your moderation better. They will not make censorship into moderation.
HN's moderation is moderation because HN isn't a medium monopoly like meta, twitter or alphabet. If HN's moderation, intentionally or incidentally, suppresses negative opinions about tensorflow... that's still not censorship. It might be biased moderation, but the web is big and local biases are OK.
It's OK to have a newspaper, webforum or whatnot that supports the christian democrats and ridicules socialists. It's not OK if all the newspapers must do this. That's twitters problem. "Moderation" applies to the medium as a whole.
Anarchy does not want "no rules" it wants "no rulers."
I agree that moderation is necessary. That does not mean that "moderation" on youtube is not censorship. Both can be true. Maybe we can't have free speech, medium monopolies and a pleasant user experience. One has to give.