[vannevar]

You shouldn't downvote to censor relevant information, period. You should only downvote if the material violates site guidelines. Downvoting to disagree is lazy, substituting easy censorship for thoughtful response. Instead, post your counter-argument or upvote an existing opinion that already expresses your position.

[Symmetry]

Censoring relevant information is, of course, never good but the authors contention was that the information isn't actually relevant. Its always good that people who are wrong get a cogent reply, but beyond that adding a "me too" post doesn't have any more benefit than a downvote does. I used to just upvote post I agreed with, but since those are no longer public the only way to clue readers in to what the consensus is is to downvote.

[vannevar]

I'm not sure I'd agree he was arguing for the irrelevance of anecdotal evidence, only that it has a disproportionate impact when considered with statistical evidence. Rather than censoring the anecodotes, the better solution is to simply point out the danger of overweighting them.

The purpose of a site like HN is not to arrive at some kind of imaginary consensus, it's to inform and engage people in meaningful discussion. There is no winning side to be on, and no ultimate arbiter of truth. By downvoting as you do, you rob the site of content in exchange for an illusory sense of victory.