As for 'if it's different, kill it': I've noticed this in my discussions about China. Many of the people I talked to that supported China's handling of things (or were themselves Chinese) disagreed with me on a fundamental value basis which you can't argue. I value human rights far, far above nationalism, yet those people did not. I simply do not see how they could do that, and, I'm guessing, they can't see how I could consider human rights more important than national pride. The Internet is mostly ruled the by United States and Europe - if the word 'ruled' is even applicable. Anyway, the US and Europe tend to share the idea of human rights > nationalism, and are thus pushing it in other places too.
Now, my opinion. I don't think you can go with the 'he just has a different view than you, everyone's view is good' thing here. I think there is a 'good view' and a 'bad view' - where the "goodness" of a view is characterized by long term societal benefit and societal contentment. Obviously, I think the 'good-er' view is one which emphasizes human rights over nationalism, because while allowing human rights might cause some unpleasant effects in the short term, in the long term, it will result in a better country with a happier populace.
Why are there riots? Why is there a need to suppress information? Because people are unhappy. Clearly, the current system of suppression isn't working perfectly. In fact, it isn't working perfectly by definition, since if everyone were happy, this wouldn't be needed. (By my definition, of course.)
Now, I realize that my point of view may sound biased - incredibly so. Maybe even something along the lines of "I'm right because the things I say are better". But you say: "Just because it's different doesn't mean you must kill it." You don't have to, but perhaps it will be better for the world as a whole if you do?
I'd love to hear your counterargument if you're willing to write another sentence about china. (Ack, that sounded snarky. Wasn't meant to.)