I agree there is total intent. For example, imagine a environmental Republican who hates all taxes but wants to promote clean energy through solar/wind/nuclear. I'm just suggesting it isn't totalitarian, it isn't anti-science, and it is the prerogative of the President to have a wide latitude to promote different EPA policies.
Never said it was totalitarian. I suggested that the censorship was real even if it is subtle. I agree it's not totalitarian. Regardless, you can frame it how ever you want to make it more appealing to left leaning or pro green individuals, doesn't really change the argument just whether or not someone likes the result more.
The issue is, the government/current administration has used its influence to censor ideas and keep the public ill informed of the information of the matter. In this particular case arguably less damaging than China suppressing ideas around Tiananmen and definitely less overt and forceful, but still its happening, been happening really, as I said, more subtle but still in the wrong direction.
And before HN community boots up its strawman arguments (not you), no I'm not also talking about illegal, damaging, stolen, top secret material, etc. I'm talking about information and ideas that harm no and/or are required for the public to make informed decisions.
