That's factually incorrect making your whataboutism in this comment and one where you replied directly to my comment seem like a deliberate attempt to rationalize the Chinese censorship apparatus.
https://www.newsweek.com/american-airlines-bows-china-delete...
> rationalize the Chinese censorship apparatus.
This is easy to rationalize, though I don't endorse how far China went - China started internet censorship apparatus in response to calls of ethnic violence after the XinJiang riots a decade ago. Facebook and Twitter was blocked post incident primarily because they refused to censor/filter these calls for violence (from both sides). Domestic terrorism doesn't fly in the west anymore, you can say China was prescient in this regards and many western companies lost out due to misplaced naivety. Now Google wants to crawl back when winds in the west is shifting.
Who fucking cares? The PATRIOT Act was in response to the worst terrorist attack on US soil in US history. Three thousand people. I have friends who were in New York then. The Japanese internment camps were in response to Pearl Harbor. If an action is wrong, the impetus doesn't fucking matter, the action is still wrong.
6-4 (Tiananmen) was not ethnic violence, do we agree on that? And the Chinese government does use internet censorship to suppress discussion of it, are you going to deny that?
As far as information control in terms of individual freedom, folks in PRC can just grab and VPN and shitpost or find competing narratives abroad. Access is possible and not even inconvenient. People in the west believes the effects of censorship is so overwhelming that it cannot possibly be circumvented to reach the "truth" that only they can attain. But most PRC folks are complacent with being ignorant. Similar to the plurality of low information readers in the west, who has access to diverse sources but somehow converges to western propaganda talking points comparable to the effects of censorship. Someone posted a western brand awareness and usage article yesterday, where 17% of Chinese internet users regularly use facebook and are aware of western perspectives. Do you think 17% of the west would go out of their way to learn the Chinese perspectives? Potential to be informed =/= informed citizenry.
???
The West recognizes what? The West now endorses Chinese Internet censorship? Western governments now also enforce Internet censorship? Did the White House start calling to Build The Firewall? What are you talking about?
> Access is possible and not even inconvenient.
The Chinese government spends billions of dollars on a system that doesn't work?
> Someone posted a western brand awareness and usage article yesterday, where 17% of Chinese internet users regularly use facebook and are aware of western perspectives.
Who cares about Chinese internet users' fucking Western brand awareness? I care about Chinese people knowing our own history, warts and all.
Taiwan lost their seat at the United Nations in an attempt to appease mainland China. So, no, the United Nation isn't an objective source of naming conventions for Taiwan. And, yes, that is absolutely bullying.
