It's telling that all but one reply took it as something which needs to be suppressed/counterargued

What does it tell?

Why do you see "suppressed" and "counterargued" as similar?

Who suggested it needs to be suppressed?

You had four replies. One, from Elo, queries a claim made in a document from the Austin Institute on the same topic as the video. One, from bogus, suggests that although the video is meant to be anti-poly, maybe it's effectively pro-poly because it's consciousness-raising. One, from ChristianKI, suggests that you're giving googlejuice to an unpleasant piece of propaganda and asks why you posted it. One, from me, gives readers some information about the likely motivations of the organization that put out the video. No one tried to suppress it; no one said it should be suppressed. No one offered counterarguments, though one person questioned a claim. No one said it needs to be argued against.

So your description of what happened doesn't seem to me to match reality.

content people are politically sensitive to is not welcome

That seems to me like an overgeneralization and an overreaction.