Those instructions read eerily like a passage of 1984, namely the parts where workers are getting instructions on how to rewrite history to portray the State in an infallible, beneficial light.
Virtually no euphemisation, no wink-wink double-think. No figure it out yourself using your subtle semi-conscious understanding of the party philosophy. This is strangely conscious and straightforward, cold.
I wonder what Orwell would have had to say about this.
Maybe China's censors get to work in pleasant offices, and have incentives like climbing the job ladder, more luxuries and status, greater pay if they move to the private sector, etc. Some might be ideologues, others cynical; maybe most just treat it like a job and they're just cogs who kind of know better but are too comfortable where they are, like the people I know about working on facial recognition for CCTV systems.
But yeah, the Chinese system is a lot cruder. The cost of disobedience isn't just losing your job and healthcare; it can be jail, maybe worse.
In Orwell's world, which I believe correctly describes many real corporate, religious and government worlds, such things are emphasised, alluded to. Never directly acknowledged. People still respond as if they were given a clear, directive, but it's never said.
"News recommendations should refer to Central government main media websites."
should be
"News recommendations should refer to accurate official sources"
"Online programs with experts and scholars on this matter must apply for permission ahead of time. This type of self-initiated program production is strictly forbidden."
should be
"Online programs with experts and scholars on this matter must be recognised authorities in their field. Verify the reputation of such individuals with the appropriate sources ahead of time."
If not for their content, such clear directives might be construed as the rule of law.