> then you’re not going to be as good at doing censorship because of censorship
I'd be pessimistic because:
1. They still have their traditional army of censors
2. You only need a certain amount of training data. If you want to suppress dissent around topic X, all it takes is a small-scale dissent movement (say 100,000 people out of 1.3 billion) around X to provide enough training data for the things you want to censor. And once you have the data, you can keep using it forever. And when something slips through, the human censors can add it to training data.
> then you’re not going to be as good at doing censorship because of censorship
I'd be pessimistic because:
1. They still have their traditional army of censors
2. You only need a certain amount of training data. If you want to suppress dissent around topic X, all it takes is a small-scale dissent movement (say 100,000 people out of 1.3 billion) around X to provide enough training data for the things you want to censor. And once you have the data, you can keep using it forever. And when something slips through, the human censors can add it to training data.