> Can someone please explain to me, why it is illegal to publish biased media?

You have been misinformed, it is not illegal to publish biased media.

> The rececently elected legislative heavily tampers with the executive/judicative and somehow this is stil democratic.

What are you trying to say? The majority passes something, and the Supreme Court chose to allow it to continue.

> IMO the tiktok ban is only about media control, no morale or legality, just political power and somehow there is still free speech for all?

You're right that it's about media control, namely a foreign adversary being able to completely control media widely consumed in the United States. Framing a content-neutral conditional ban, which could've been avoided without any content changes, as being against "free speech" makes zero sense when the platform being banned is controlled by a foreign adversary that doesn't have free speech. The argument is that a foreign adversary shouldn't be allowed to censor and manipulate our media and farm our data.

Thanks for the answer but i am still not satisfied.

So, the problem seems to be _foreign_ biased media and not biased media in general. General media bias could be made punishable too but this would take away influencial powers.

> a content-neutral conditional ban.

So TikToks content or bias is irrelevant? The only thing left is the adversarial ownership, which is ban worthy. How?

> So, the problem seems to be _foreign_ biased media and not biased media in general.

That literally is the purpose of the ban. It’s not like you have happened across some kind of novel “gotcha” here.

Always surprised me in the land of the "Free" they ban a whole lot more than in most other countries. Books, LGBT stuff, no objective media. It feels quite medieval.

"Banned books!" is a phrase used for marketing, but it's not really accurate. Most, if not all, of the allegedly "banned books" aren't "banned" in the sense that you are implying, and the "banning" isn't being done by the fedeeal United States government. You can go to bookstores and see entire sections of "banned" books, which as you might guess from the fact that they are freely sold are not in fact really banned.

I mean, book banning isn't a federal level thing (at least not at any remotely broad level) and typically happens either on one side of the political spectrum (same deal with LGBT stuff), or at the level of individual school systems. e.g. you won't find that book at the school library at most, but the bookstore down the street will have it.

Vast difference from the typical notion of book burnings and such.

"Objective" media exists (NPR, PBS(?), CSPAN) but just isn't as popular because biased media attracts more attention through confirmation bias and flashiness.

It's not illegal to publish biased media in the US. Not sure where you got that idea.

I didn’t expect HN to be full of bootlicking fascists totally fine with censorship as long as the bogeyman is China.

Red panic is back. I’d be careful honestly.