Clearly that was bias to suppress negative information about potential corrupt dealings of Joe Biden's extended family and likely him as well.
A more recent cultural example would be banning the satirical website Bablyon Bee for a joke article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2022/03/21/the-babyl...
Because that contrasts with the leaderships own personal beliefs, jokes like that are a bannable offense. But, an equally crass joke about Lindsey Graham being a homosexual because of his accent by Jon Stewart would be perfectly fine: https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/243250-why-...
I hate this line of reasoning, and I also hate that it's so prevelantly used in our legal system (we have a legal system, not a justice system FWIW). This same flawed line of thought has prevented lawsuits against the government for their illegal spying. Since "no one can prove they were harmed", and "proving you were harmed is against the law" we're stuck.
Consider the following: A pending meteor impact harms absolutely no one until right before it impacts and harms everyone.
How did the administration force a private company to make a choice here? I'm not following that part.
I’m sorry but your entire logical structure comes off as absurd to me.
We have a fundamentally evil and absurd government, and you’re asking me how anyone was “forced” to do anything? Really?
We really are cheerfully walking ourselves straight into 1984.