TV channels like BBC (for high-end hotels) are being monitored real-time to black-out sensitive parts, books mailed or imported from overseas get pages ripped out, even entries in dictionaries get painted black.
Don't underestimate the seriousness of the censorship, it's among the few things communists are actually good at.
And note their reason for not automatically blocking Uyghur content: "We eventually decided not to do it: We didn't have enough Uyghur language data points in our system, and the most popular livestream rooms were already closely monitored." Which I guess means they have a dedicated group of Uyghur speakers on staff to censor those streams.
Cantonese was widely spoken in Guangdong until the CCP actively wiped it out [3]. Among the 204 members of the CCP Central Committee, only 2 are from Guangdong [4]. Guangdong generated the highest GDP among all 31 administrative divisions [5], and doesn’t get its fair share of high ranking officials.
It’s not Han supremacy. It’s Mandarin-Han supremacy.
[0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200402/03110144220/tikto...
[1] https://www.scmp.com/abacus/culture/article/3078365/chinas-v... (paywalled)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_num...
[3] https://www.businessinsider.com/china-is-forcing-its-biggest...
[4] https://www.sohu.com/a/429814378_469134 (in Chinese)
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_administrative...
And if we were to talk about death of languages, maybe you need to realise that it's actually a much worse problem in Anglo-Saxon countries than anywhere else https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_time_of_e...
My company recently moved away from animated characters back to using humans in their ads. Most of the people in our ads are mixed race, you can't really tell if they're asian, white, arab, or "tanned".
So it's the same promotion of a genetic look, just with a different group of people.
What? It’s all about the money.
Ads, and tv (which is simply a honeypot to draw ad viewers) want to connect with as many viewers as possible in order to sell as much product (cars, cereal, or whatever) as possible.
In the 1950s US the only people with appreciable spending power were white parents, thus those were the ads. Magazines, which could be more finely targeted, were more diverse overall, though demographically siloed.
Society does not look like that (it never did, but the $$$ distribution did). Ads and TV are on the trailing edge, not the leading edge. And TV looks demographically more like the people I see, and more like my family, than it ever has before.
I have no idea what the phrase “people in power WANT society to look like” really means.
OP wasn't exactly ambiguous. Only thing that was missing from "people in power" was maybe three sets of parantheses enclosing it.
The actual explanation is simpler and more crass: It's about what sells to the target audience. At least for large campaigns, these things are thoroughly vetted.
If you're uncomfortable with some aspect of an ad, you aren't the target audience.
The activist Left in the West is grass-roots censorship, which is a completely different problem from a top-down, military-backed authoritarian regime. Granted, the former seems hard at work trying to produce the latter.
They described simply cutting off a stream because of the language spoken.
Same shit, different process.
Even disregarding your false promotion comparison, what about the other side?
CCP 'promotes' (actually carries out) the brutal persecution of non-Han and specifically Uighurs in part facilitated propaganda ('ads')
US corporations are not forced by the government to include for instance only one community or exclude another in their communications.
Us corporations are not de facto owned by the government and do not have the same goal of consolidating power to maintain the CCP's (and increasingly just one man at the top's) grip over its own citizens.
In the US many spend lots of money lobbying to keep the government out of their business!