Many topics discussed on HN inevitably have some political overlap. That doesn't make it ok to post flamebait, cheap one-liners, and so on. This standard is well established here, and if you read the HN guidelines you'll find much there that expresses it. For example: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." In other words, when the topic becomes political, that's when the guidelines matter even more, and commenters need to abide by them. Otherwise we end up with internet flamewar the same as most other places on the internet, and that's not interesting. All scorched earth is the same.
Satire is sometimes the most effective means of pointing out an unfair bias (See: South Park). It seems clear to me that bringing to light a clear political bias is not only applicable to the topic but offering a thought provoking viewpoint on how free speech is not only being threatened by an external entity (China in this case), but domestically by our peers.
The question asked was about US leadership doing something about this problem. The comment was immediately discounted using dismissive language (by you) implying that there is no evidence, while providing none yourself.
Now you've chosen to tie it off with a condescending link to rules you've chosen to selectively enforce under the guise of being "constructive".
What I posted was bog-standard HN moderation, a routine thing where we try to limit the tendency of threads to go into outright flamewar and keep the discussion more substantive. That's the idea of this site and it's what the bulk of the community wants.
Would you mind familiarizing yourself a bit more with how HN works? The links I posted upthread are a good place to start.
Edit: Please remember that only negative comments regarding President Trump are allowed in this political discussion about free speech.