[1] https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
[1] https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
Although I don't condone censorship overall, I do find it interesting and identify that governments will always find it necessary to impose some form of societal control.
From this study, it seems to me that the Chinese government chooses to prevent events that may cause conflict and violence. That is almost noble, were it not for the fact that it also helps the government maintain a firm grip of control in all situations. I think there is also something to be said for the Great Firewall and how it manages to keep gigantic companies like Facebook and Google from interfering with foreign countries and how it spurs local companies to come up with similar solutions. The drawbacks are all obvious and I don't think it's necessary to repeat those here.
The way that political dissent is managed in the West is so much more chaotic, and generally more violent. The public is split in two (usually) and played against eachother which often results in violence on the streets. Although being able to protest is at least symbolically a good thing, I often wonder if it isn't mostly just another tool used to create the illusion of freedom. If the public is constantly bombarded with misinformation and fear-mongering tactics it's highly unlikely that any sort of unified protest could convert to real, regime threatening change.
So I agree with you that we should be critical of the West, and honestly this post wasn't a jab at Chinese politics in favour of the West, it was more of a learning experience for myself.
Every single state acts this way. Every single effective state system at least. It's called "Monopoly on Violence." It is one of the defining characteristics of "modern" state organizations.
Unsanctioned use of violence directly threats the state's power and will quickly call into question the state's legitimacy if the state can't control coordinated or wanton violence.
That's why I used the word "sanctioned", publicly or privately.
Its not difficult to find dissenting voices on pretty much any topics you care to name, and calls for collective action too, and nobody does much (or in reality, can do much) to stop them, the real trick of American censorship and propaganda is these views are never seen in the major media sources the vast majority consume.
This is a vastly different model than how censorship in China operates, with different consequences, and different ways to oppose it.
The biggest issue is that the media is owned by the oligarchy, and so as you note any opinions that fall outside the accepted norm are ignored. This completely perverts democracy as unbiased media is crucial to having informed public that can vote meaningfully. It's simply not realistic to expect individuals to do their own research and become experts on many different subjects in order to vote because any individual subject can take years of study to grasp properly. The job of the journalists is to do this research for the benefit of the public and then present it in a way that's meaningful to the layman. When the media stops doing its job democracy dies.
If the only thing that mattered was what the oligarchy wanted, Trump would have never been elected, because from all accounts he was widely loathed by those in power, even within his own party, not that it makes him a good president, but its compelling evidence that they have less power than you are assuming.
I believe this study is stating exactly that we could carry on this conversation, up to the point where we all agree on something in enough numbers and possibly decide to take action about it.
Now compare that to the viewership of USA's political propaganda network, Fox, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc. The things mass media says will make it to the general public, true or not, the small dissenting voice will reach a select amount of nobodies.
I think the US is just a doormat right now on a international level and unwilling to come out on a decisive side (unless he somehow thinks it will help to get a trade deal).
So curious, so inquisitive, so academic.
So really talking about China is the real whataboutism here.
By conflating patterns of US government’s very real human rights abuses (domestic and abroad) with with the CCP’s abuses, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of how each political system works and its relationship with its citizens.
Also you’re using a red herring logical fallacy when you say “let’s focus on fixing shit here”. How about trying to do dispute the original premise instead of distracting?
Why must we take a contrary position to what was stated? You do understand that it's a perfectly valid and normal thing to agree with what was stated but pivot the conversation towards something that is more relevant and actionable?