It changes the nature of the ban, being given a slap on the wrist vs being permanently shut out, like I have been for calling out the Democrat's complicity in the genocide of Palestinians on .world comms, or giving a nuanced take on what Socialism should be considered on a comm moderated by PugJesus.

Either way, you need to explain because anti-China views are only really common in Europe and the US/Canada, Australia, and their allies like Japan. Pro-Chinese views, and views of a good nature on their Human Rights, are more common among people globally. Why does this discrepancy exist? Because western countries are not given free reign to plunder China economically like they do elsewhere, and thus manufacture outrage paid for by the US State Department.

It isn't about calling the US perfect, it's about weighing problems in China specifically more than problems elsewhere. China is not perfect, but at the same time it is better than contemporary powers.

As for speech censoring, the speech gets censored, why does it matter more to you that companies be able to do so?

As for HK, about 3/4s of the population want integration with the PRC, with some wishing more autonomy but very few wanting a hard break.

To return to the issue of Uyghur sepparatism, there is a well-documented history of violence in the region, such as the 2009 Urumqi Riots. There was factually a problem. We can critique the Chinese response, but this was a real problem China addressed with reeducation camps. Claims that these camps are for genocidal reasons aren't backed up by UN investigation, though, such claims come exclusively from Christian Nationalist and US and UK government-funded propagandist Adrian Zenz, who believes China is the antichrist and it is his mission from God to condemn them.

Again, we can absolutely have real critique of China, but blindly repeating claims with dubious origins and generally maintaining a distrust of the Chinese on the basis of having a strong Public Sector is not real critique, hence why I wanted you to look at the UN report. This is a similar situation to the Iraqi UN Weapons Inspectors, who never found WMD but the US lied and invaded anyways. Real events are distorted so the US can pressure into economic capitulation, and even justify invasion, and then apologize if ever called out later for it.

It's the same tedious thought terminating cliches that western chauvinists are pre-progammed to repeat. Many of them are misinformation, (like the "Uyghur genocide" narrative), but most of them don't even have enough substance to even get to that level.