There's no need for quotes around suppressing as it was suppressed, objectively.
> they were awfully bad at it
It was done to sway an election, which went the way was desired, and without any legal blowback. That is not being "awfully bad at it".
> as anyone who ever wanted to learn about them certainly won’t shut up about it.
But at the time and when it was most important people were shut up regardless of whether they wanted to be.
Again, if you are somehow equating this hunter biden story with the censorship of, say, tiannamen square by the ccp, I encourage you to visit china and research the subject. Compare the efforts you mentioned were used to suppress the hunter biden story with what is outlined here, for example: https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/03/a-look-at-the-many-ways-ch... and you will see how awfully bad the us gov is at censorship.
If the government was so concerned about trump as you say, then why did the same fbi re open an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server just weeks before the 2016 election?
Actually, tell you what, if you believe that the efforts to censor the hunter biden laptop story and tiannamen square are equivalent, I will make a bet. I will pay to print up two shirts: one with “hunter biden is a criminal” and a QR code to the New York post article. The other will say “remember June 5, 1989” with a QR code to the Wikipedia article titled “tank man”.
Wear both shirts in public outside the US capitol and take selfies. Then wear both shirts out in Beijing. Hell just try to get through customs wearing the June 5 shirt and let me know how that goes. I’ll pay for the shirts.
Your ability to know about a story does not tell us whether the wider population knew.
> At no point was it difficult to learn more.
And yet it was actively suppressed. I also wonder what topic you couldn't claim that for?
> Again, if you are somehow equating this hunter biden story with the censorship of, say, tiannamen square by the ccp
I didn't use that example, perhaps it was used further up. Regardless, equating is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Comparing would be a better fit. Yes, all instances of censorship can be compared simply because they are censorship.
> you will see how awfully bad the us gov is at censorship
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be worried about this censorship because the government is bad at it compared to the Chinese government? That's not going to fly. I also think the obvious slippery slope here would be hard to characterise as fallacious, given we're provided with both ends of the slope, and in actual fact, the US is not at the top of the slope.
> If the government was so concerned about trump as you say, then why did the same fbi re open an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server just weeks before the 2016 election?
The government is not of one mind, it is made up of many departments, groups and individuals, each with their own attitudes, desires and intentions. Regardless, how am I supposed to answer that? Or more to the point, what kind of answer would satisfy you?
> if you believe that the efforts to censor the hunter biden laptop story and tiannamen square are equivalent
Did you mean to reply to me?
> I will make a bet
I skipped this as it was childish and unhelpful, and only builds on the straw man (intentional or not) that you are building.