Chinese censorship operates with a 'turn a blind eye' approach rather than strict enforcement. The government allows citizens access to outside information while maintaining nominal restrictions. GitHub exemplifies this—officially censored but widely used by Chinese developers without consequence.
VPNs and encrypted messaging apps like Telegram are technically forbidden but practically tolerated. This selective enforcement extends to politically sensitive topics. While the Tiananmen Square events of 1989 remain officially censored, most Chinese citizens know about them through VPN access. Other historical events like the Cultural Revolution are not cencored and are actually taught in schools.
About me, I have studied in the U.S. and lived extensively in China, so I guess, from your standard, I'm one of the least brainwashed people in China? I know lots of cencored information but none of them relates to Xinjiang opperession. Therefore, as an educated person who lived in U.S. and China, I can confidently state that reported oppressions in Xinjiang are false narratives.
You also talked about one-party rule. Oh c'mon, a lot of people, including more than 50 minority groups, dislike the one-party rule. It's meaningless for the government to oppress one specific group.
Extremists face detainment in re-education camps for two specific reasons: First, their radical beliefs exceed public tolerance—unlike most Muslims, they engage in violence. Second, they combine religious extremism with separatist ambitions. These interventions target violent extremism and territorial separatism specifically, not related to the one-party rule. Furthermore, the number of extremists is very small. I don't think they constitute a large portion in Uyghurs. So it's not millions of extremists, I think it's at most thousands.
You may heard lots of such fake news from BBC, CNN, NYT newspaper, etc, and these media outlets function as propaganda tools. I can give you an evidence: BBC and CNN used to report a lot Chinese human rights violations. But during the Trump administration, they magically fliped to support China and praise China a lot. This dramatic shift proves that they are political tools, or at least part-time political tools when speaking of China, that simply convey the message what they're ordered to convey.
If Western critics truly wanted to challenge China and make Chinese people wake effectively, I can give they some suggesions. They can talk about
1. unaffordable housing prices in China,
2. persistent low incomes in China, and
3. environmental cleanliness. I mean most places, excluding big cities like SF or NYC, are cleaner than places in China.
These are real problems that resonate with Chinese people rather than fabricated oppression narratives.
If you want to check my words, feel free to visit China to see the reality for themselves.