[catiopatio]

You have conspicuously avoided addressing the specific, systemic human rights abuses unique to China.

Instead, your post employs a series of rhetorical tactics aimed at stifling constructive dialogue:

First, you assert a false equivalency between China and the USA/EU by trivializing the qualitative difference in freedom levels, thereby attempting to normalize authoritarianism.

Second, you use a slippery slope argument about social media moderation to suggest that all limitations on freedom are essentially the same — equating limited, private content moderation with systemic human rights abuses by government.

Third, you engage in an ad hominem attack by accusing me of being influenced by propaganda without providing substantive counter-arguments.

Were I to adopt your approach, I could easily make similar sweeping ad hominem accusations based on your behavior here.

[brabel]

This response is comic. Are you sure I am the one stifling dialogue?

I did not assert any false equivalence, that's your mistaken interpretation. Given your poor reading skills, I agree there's no reason to continue a dialogue, actually.

[catiopatio]

Your first false equivalence arises out of trivializing the qualitative differences in freedom between China and the USA/EU, implicitly framing the limitations in China as comparable to those in democratic societies.

This is misleading given the severe restrictions on human rights, freedom of speech, and rule of law in an authoritarian regime like China.

Your second false equivalence is in your equating of limited, private content moderation by a social network with systemic human rights abuses by government.