I just read over the guidelines, and I'm wondering if this actually violates any of them or if you just won't tolerate comments that you disagree with on sensitive subjects. Would you be open to amending the guidelines with a list of banned opinions? I think that would make it easier for people to know what you will or will not ban people for, instead of vaguely threatening without specifying which guideline was violated.
Your comment violated this guideline: "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." In fact, you violated it so egregiously that if you don't see the connection, it might be best to stop posting until you do.
Regarding bias: I know how tempting it is to conclude that the mods must be moderating you because they secretly disagree with your opinions and support your enemies. The thing is, though, that the enemies feel like we're secretly supporting you. In reality we're doing neither, just trying to preserve this place for curious conversation, which is mostly a fire prevention job.
Your campaign is based on a misconception: the US is not even mentioned in the study or article. If you look at the map, primarily English-speaking countries (UK, US, Australia, NZ) are not colour-coded, as the survey was focused on English proficiency in non-primarily-English-speaking countries.
As for the guidelines, they have been developed and refined over many years, and people who are committed to participating in HN in good faith have no difficulty sticking to them. Dang's 5+ years of moderation precedent can be easily studied here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
"Campaign" is a loaded word. Anyway, it looks like I misread the map. It would have been far more productive for someone to just point that out, rather than threatening a ban.
Dang's job is to keep HN aligned with its purpose, which is to be a place for discovering and discussing content that "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity".
That means flamewar sparks and anger-inciting comments about predictably-politically-charged topics simply don't belong.
It's a full-time job just doing that; fact-checking is not a service he has time to provide, and factuality doesn't greatly affect whether a comment is outside the guidelines (everyone makes mistakes, there's nothing wrong with that; it's how you express yourself that matters here).
It's not even about topics that are controversial; Dang has said many times that controversial topics are fine to be discussed here; they just have to be discussed in a way that gratifies curiosity (i.e., we can learn things from the discussion), rather than stirring up partisan rage.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html