>shed some light
Digital sovereignty, it's not complicated. Every country who can be in charge of their domestic information ecosystem, should. If US wants embrace PRC model of a controlled media ecosystem where tiktok / US media platforms to ban non-US aligned content from adversary sources, Tiktok would be happy to oblige and scale moderation/compliance costs accordingly. If anything they'd be at competitive advantage being able to draw from douyin experiences in PRC.
You're good example, you're still posting here, via VPN. The friction between PRC info and western eco is VPN costs - it's cheap/trivially accessible for those who need it. People reverse VPN to access geofenced PRC content in the west. People jump region blocking to access geofenced media on western streaming platforms? VPN are everywhere for those who care.
As for why, there was stanford study a few years ago trying to measure PRC propaganda on western platforms only to find they were crowded out by western antiPRC propaganda, including likes of FLG. PRC doesn't want free mixture of foreign propaganda. Constitutionally, the US shouldn't care about reverse. But here we are with TikTok ban. IMO Some ideological / info ecosystems shouldn't naturally mix. See west crack down on RU media post war. Which is fine (for me), as long as there's methods for motivated people to cross the gap.
Regardless, this isn't about free access to information, it's about operating a business in different regions by following relevant regulations. The original argument is whining about why US platforms shouldn't follow PRC law and pay similar compliance costs as domestic competitors, and somehow think that's unfair.
>wouldn't call those angry & brainwashed Tibetans "terrorists"
Neither did I. I said abetting terrorists, and terroism/radicalism foreign influences, that exploded from abroad when these restive regions got connected to global info networks after 90s, including radical seperatist movements. Hence entire regions got caught up in crack down. Including innocents, but cracking down on minorities representing 1% of population responsible for hundreds of terror events that spread out to other provinces is just sensible political policy. Heavy handed, but politically sensible, considering terrorism stopped.
The real issue beyond terrorisms is symptom of aforementioned increase in seperatisms due to PRC's "generous" ethnic oblast policy that "allowed" these frontier regions to keep their cultures and not sinicize / smoothly integrate into broader PRC society. They were never "properly colonized", because frankly PRC was too poor to heavily assert influence on frontiers without expensive infra, now they can, and are against Tibetan/Uyghur will. Of course the oppressed are mad, rebelling, justifiably. But frankly it's politically absurd that their primary language isn't Mandarin, like every repressed minority speaks dominant local language in the west, who virtue signals how bad cultural genocide is while benefitting from it because basic language integration is essential domestic serenity/stability/security. There's no melting pot if some groups of people don't don't melt into the pot.
>they still got shutdown
Most of my PRC interest forums / BBS (milwatching) got shut down last few years because crackdown on discussion of PLA related subjects due to national security. Community goes abroad, on twitter, on telegram, get a VPN. Again, that's the compromise, it's annoying, but it works. I know people who got invited to drink tea, had wechat accounts banned and reinstated after promising to behave. Which is a hell lot more than I can say about people I know who got banned on western platforms and had not avenue to appeal. Communities everywhere get dismantled all the time. You find where it reconsolidates and move on. Just like people moved on from Vine, and likely, TikTok.
>very good personal relationship
Yes Gates know how to play the game and follow the rules. It's not scary, it's business.