Seemingly not, there’s a lot of evidence that what’s happening in Xinjiang are not “lies”… And that is certainly not chauvinism. Or well I don’t want to deny that you are thinking for yourself, but when a lot of relevant variables/info is missing than the conclusion of the thought is well incomplete (and thus incorrect).

If you read my post you'd see I know there were abuses but characterising it as a genocide is a lie built on lies and exaggerations of those abuses.

I mean the necessity for that alone is proof to me that china is authoritarian, I cannot imagine having to use a VPN for basic things, like accessing something like the Wikipedia (great loss for you btw. it’s probably one of the greatest things that the internet has brought so far, not all the capitalistic bullshit that the Silicon Valley creates)

The firewall was originally created to foster and protect China’s fledgling digital infrastructure and data sovereignty. That was a legitimate policy choice. Many countries regulate foreign platforms and data flows. China built its own ecosystem instead of depending on foreign companies. We have seen what happens when foreign platforms operate without local oversight: Facebook facilitating genocide in Myanmar, coordinated anti-vax disinformation campaigns in Southeast Asia, algorithm-driven radicalization. The firewall makes those kinds of external influence operations harder to run at scale.

I like many others here support the firewall even though it can be inconvenient (so long as vpns remain accessible and legal). I have seen the alternatives. The trade off makes sense to us.

Also fuck Wikipedia it constantly sites bullshit like RFA and is used by American intelligence to run psyops. If you use it as a source for anything outside of scientific facts like the atomic number of an element you're an idiot.

Pointing out genocide is distinct from abuse is bad

You do realise if you call all abuses genocide you're not only diluting the term genocide but also slinging mud on the real grievances of people?

While I agree, that most of our democracies are not perfect (European/EU, the US is basically fascism at this point), they basically all allow political plurality, well lets start even by democracy… Rule of law is independent of the executive (separation of powers), nah the more I get into it the less I agree with that

So you agree it applies to pretty much every country? And again can see how that makes it largely meaningless?

Can they do that with state funded TV, like Winnie the pooh (funny story btw. that your great leader is so offended by that caricature…)?

Why do you need TV to agree with you? Are you incapable of having independant political discussion with people in your country without the TV telling you what to think? Also Winnie the pooh isn't banned Winnie the Pooh merch is all over the place it's super popular. Not to mention Disneyland and it's Winnie the pooh themed areas. What was banned was platforms regulating the spread of a racist caricature in the same way they do all other racist caricatures because social media harm is actually regulated here as opposed to allowed run rampant for profits sake.