This suggests that the Chinese government recognises that its legitimacy is conditional and potentially unstable. Consequently, the state treats uncontrolled public discourse as a direct threat. By contrast, countries such as the United States can tolerate the public exposure of war crimes, illegal actions or state violence, since such revelations rarely result in any significant consequences. While public outrage may influence narratives or elections to some extent, it does not fundamentally endanger the continuity of power.

I am not sure if one approach is necessarily worse than the other.

Are you actually defending the censorship of Tiananmen Square?

You don't need to go that far back

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps

The current heinous thing they do is censorship. Your comment would be relevant if the OP had to find an example of censorship from 35 years ago, but all he had to do today was to ask the model a question.

Which other party that is still ruling today (aka dictatorship) mass murdered a bunch of students within the past 35 years? Or equivalent.

1. Xinjiang detention and surveillance (2017-ongoing)

2. Hong Kong National Security Law (2020-ongoing)

3. COVID-19 lockdown policies (2020-2022)

4. Crackdown on journalists and dissidents (ongoing)

5. Tibet cultural suppression (ongoing)

6. Forced organ harvesting allegations (ongoing)

7. South China Sea militarization (ongoing)

8. Taiwan military intimidation (2020-ongoing)

9. Suppression of Inner Mongolia language rights (2020-ongoing)

10. Transnational repression (2020-ongoing)

Tiananmen Square is a simple test that most people recognize.

I'm sure the model will get cold feet talking about the Hong Kong protests and uyghur persecution as well.

To my knowledge this model is not 35 years old.