More specifically, I can foresee that in the future I'll be banned by more authors, and then I'll have to make a choice of remaining on the site and potentially misleading people (who could reasonably update positively on some post that is of high interest to me by the absence of my criticism on it, without knowing that I've been banned by its author), 

The whole disjunction seems pretty unlikely to me.

• I think it's unlikely you'd actually be banned. Reason: base rates. You've been on LW for 17 years, and been banned once (?), briefly (?)
• I think it's unlikely that your inability to comment directly on a particular post would actually make your criticism less visible. Your posts and comments are highly visible in general, and any drama or controversy (especially moderation controversy) tends to attract more eyeballs, not less.
• I think it's unlikely that any onlookers would make incorrect updates due to a commenting ban. Onlookers are pretty bad at updating correctly on long back-and-forth arguments in general, primarily due to lack of attention span and intellectual laziness (more). Controversy and censorship tends to nudge people to think harder and spend more effort to make up their own mind.

In general, explicit moderation and censorship can have a big distortionary effect on individual and group epistemics. But I think on LW and most other parts of the present-day internet, other factors (attention span, groupthink, deference, format / medium, algorithmic bubbles, etc.) have a much bigger impact than moderation, especially the kind of individual / grassroots moderation that LW permits.