Well, you can express your point of view, but don't tell everyone else what they think. If imperfection were a sin to deny rights and power, then who would have rights and power? Certainly not the Chinese government!
Again, how do you know what I think? I'm not as dumb as you think.
> Any chinese will know for sure they will be shut for some reason such as crossing a redline. Whether that's right or wrong it's your judgement.
It's not my judgement, it's a matter of human rights. Whether I judge it so or not, those people have a right to act and speak freely. It's not up to me (or you or the CCP).
Without a precise definition we cannot have a fruitful discussion.
Sure in a western democracy it's fine (given that there's at least some alignment with party interest). But once it gets a lot of attention and an influencer status then the authoritarian gov won't let it grow further without consequences for sure. 'Redline' is a bad term but it's usually separatist, discrimination speech etc. Not all 'pro-democracy' media are targeted because they are simply not big enough yet.
Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily defending any side, just want to discuss more nuances.
If you mean that in a democracy, publications need "at least some alignment with party interest", that's certainly not the case. However, given the multitude of political interests, the publication is bound to align somewhat with someone.
(Also, I disagree with the term "western democracy": Taiwan is Chinese and has a thriving democracy, as did Hong Kong until recently, plus there's Japan, S. Korea, Indonesia, India, Chile, Benin, etc etc. Democracy hasn't been 'western' for generations.)
However, I wonder a bit if this thread is becoming overly critical. I am aware that in any dictatorship, they allow some outlets - as long as they don't grow too powerful, as you say.
That's a false equivalency, like saying 'people in Pyonyang aren't perfectly free, nor are people in New York, so it's basically the same.' It's not at all the same.
Unless you are drawing an equivalency between the CCP censored and created information on one hand, and the New York Times and Jonathan Spence on the other, I don't see what the point is.
'No information is perfect'? A similar claim is, 'no composer writes flawless music', but that tells us nothing about anything; it fails even to distinguish between Bach and me.
Most of people in China understand the value of rule of law. And we never deny that the environment there is far from any democratic western society. But if you read the article and are the readers of the mentioned media outlets you would agree a bit that those are a little dubious (Post852, Winandmac Media etc, Apple Daily included). It's definitely not good to have a sweeping ban, but pretending all non-mainland chinese media is pro democracy and liberal values and not populist (sometimes provocative and radicalised) to attract viewers is a little naive in my humble opinion.