Just saying we have as much to learn from them, as they from us. It's not productive to look at their censorship tools as one dimensional attacks on freedom of

Just saying we have as much to learn from them, as they from us. It's not productive to look at their censorship tools as one dimensional attacks on freedom of speech. Both sides are programmed to look at the issue (of censorship) differently, while in fact they are trying to solve the same problems. When China is attempting censorship of mainstream and social media, they do so with the specific goal of preventing sudden/unpredictable destabilizing scenarios i.e. they are proactive. This has well known costs which gets quite a bit of publicity in the West. The West on the other hand while "protecting freedom of speech" is forced into being reactive (https://twitter.com/nytimes/statuses/567805738173886464 https://twitter.com/nytimes/statuses/567805738173886464 + see Twitter CEO's comment about the failure to deal with online abuse\hate) There is a massive cost\consequence to being reactive i.e. ISIS\Charlie Hedbo etc that keeps accruing. When a family gets displaced from their home in Iraq or Syria, directly or indirectly, thanks to ISIS recruitment on Twitter or some clip on YouTube, currently, there isn't any serious pressure on companies or governments in the West to take responsibility. Everyone is programmed\biased to "protect freedom of speech" as a default position. There needs to be more pressure. Censorship and reducing anonymity shouldn't be treated as holy cows, that CEO's and Govt officials are afraid to publicly talk about. Complicated story apologies if I am being overly brief.