> Western social media companies are increasingly censorial, following Chinese censorship in spirit not structure.
The structure is what matters. Kings and despots throughout history have frequently ruled fairly and justly. Out of all the decisions they made in that role, they probably made many more fair ones than unjust ones. But their making the right call in any particular case is not a reason they should have had that much power in the first place.
Western social media is stepping up moderation of harassment and calls for violence, but they're making an effort to do so in an accountable and transparent way while doing so. And I don't think even they are accountable enough; I hope that Instagram and WhatsApp really do get split off from Facebook.
> The firewall and grey legislation around vpns is calibrated that low information audience gravitates towards party line while those seeking information has access.
Am I understanding correctly that your position is that this is a good thing, or at least fine? Because this placates the masses which tend more towards violence or other destabilizing actions, while allowing elites to continue to have a robust debate? Is that an accurate characterization of your position?
> The numbers suggests more Chinese people are aware of western and Chinese perspectives than vice versa. Leading me to ask, in general, who is actually more informed?
I'm not worried about American awareness of Chinese perspectives. I'm worried about Americans' missing or inaccurate understanding of American history, e.g. the Lost Cause.
I'm not worried about Chinese awareness of American perspectives. I'm worried about Chinese suppressed or sanitized understanding of Chinese modern history, e.g. June 4th.
I don't give a fuck about Chinese people being able to read Americans' sanctimonious takes on Tiananmen. I want Chinese people to be able to read Liu Xiaobo's take on June 4th, on Charter 08, on 996.