I didn't say kind of censorship is the same, nor should they be. I said US platforms who want to operate in PRC should comply with PRC national security interests REGARDLESS of how it's "worse". It's happening in Vietnam and other highly censorial countries now without much issue. If didn't happen in PRC before because they didn't want to eat the cost.
What's moderated maybe different, but how it's moderated now is the same. US followed PRC platforms to build actual teams to "guide" content, PRC has extra step of formal content blacklist, no different than wiping out mass shooting videos. It's an expensive man powered team trying to ensure platform stays out of trouble. It's now technically / functionally / economically comparable, hence the comment about how western platforms started exploring ways back into PRC market AFTER they implemented PRC like moderation systems.
The comment isn't a debate about which censorship system is "superior". It's simply acknowledging US platforms got blocked because they couldn't compete on PRC rules that PRC companies had to follow.
What's moderated maybe different, but how it's moderated now is the same. US followed PRC platforms to build actual teams to "guide" content, PRC has extra step of formal content blacklist, no different than wiping out mass shooting videos. It's an expensive man powered team trying to ensure platform stays out of trouble. It's now technically / functionally / economically comparable, hence the comment about how western platforms started exploring ways back into PRC market AFTER they implemented PRC like moderation systems.
The comment isn't a debate about which censorship system is "superior". It's simply acknowledging US platforms got blocked because they couldn't compete on PRC rules that PRC companies had to follow.