Did you actually read the paper? You quote from the results section. Did you go directly there? Here's the opening paragraph. You'll find plenty in the paper t

Did you actually read the paper? You quote from the results section. Did you go directly there? Here's the opening paragraph. You'll find plenty in the paper to support it, although this is directly supported with a citation from their previous paper (http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf): "We begin with the theoretical context. The largest previous study of the purpose of Chinese censorship (2) distinguished between the “state critique” and “collective action potential” theories of censorship and found that, with few exceptions, the first was wrong and the second was right: Criticisms of the government in social media (even vitriolic ones) are not censored, whereas any attempt to physically move people in ways not sanctioned by the government is censored. Even posts that praise the government are censored if they pertain to real-world collective action events (2)." Critique of the state is not censored. The paper goes on to show that even discussion about having a multiparty American-style Constitutional system is not subject to censorship. There are very select things that are censored, and these things that are censored (calls for direct collective action and specific topics related to these) see both: 1.) foreign propaganda attempts, which is a strong reason for the Chinese government to be interested in disruption (this is also true in America) 2.) parity with movement disquieting behavior of Western states (the US disquiets movements through mechanisms other than direct censorship including direct organizational infiltration, Fusion Centers, IRS harassment, JTRIG type 'warnings', character assassination, bribery, etc)