Definitely agreed that you can get a lot more information about something by comparing what different news agencies, especially in different parts of the world, are saying. It's sometimes difficult, since there are so many options, but it can be done.

But the problem is that, internally, Chinese people don't have access to all that. They pretty much -- as you well know -- just have access to what the government allows. If the government tells everyone that the protesters in HK are doing terrible things, they have nothing to compare it to to check those "facts".

Regarding the video you linked, I got a good chuckle out of it, but I don't think it really suggests what the speaker thinks it does. He asks:

"Is it laziness that causes reporters to copy each other?"

In some cases, yes. Many (most?) news reports are based on one of several feeds. Often the end publications who write up pieces about it will use a lot of the same language. And in any case, journalists talk to each other, probably a lot, in the course of getting their work done.

"Is someone coordinating the message?"

Maybe? But the implied conspiracy angle here requires extraordinary evidence, and a bunch of news outlets all using the word "bracing" to describe how HK feels about the coming weekend is, well, circumstantial at best.

"Are these reports all just coincidences?"

Probably not, but that doesn't have to indicate that something nefarious is going on.

He goes on to state: "Freedom of speech means you can finally feel free to trust the media."

Wellll... kinda, but not really. Freedom of speech means that you, personally, can express your opinions without government interference. That also means the media can do the same. It means that you can feel free to trust that the media is saying what it says without the government pulling the strings. But, as you point out, everyone has their own biases, so you can't trust what the media says to be the hard truth, or at least to not be heavily slanted or spun in order to promote a particular narrative. Again, as you pointed out, reading from difference sources, from different places, can give you a better idea of what's really going on.

The news compilation at the end was also pretty funny, but not all that surprising. Remember that most television news in the US is owned by... maybe five(?) parent corporations. I'm not particularly happy with that, but the reality of the situation is that, for the most part, individual stations have a ton of freedom to report on whatever they want to report on. Sometimes -- as in this particular case -- the parent company will require that they run a segment on a particular topic, and I guess even provide suggested wording (which I figure most will probably just take as-is, if they don't find anything too disagreeable about it). And yes, this can be used for sketchy purposes. In this particular case -- talking about how spreading lies and incorrect information as truthful news is harmful to democracy -- well, that's true, and I don't really mind them passing along this message. But we have to be vigilant to spot an evil required message if and when one comes through.

Regarding "a different form of censorship", I don't really agree with that. It's very different for a government to not allow you to say something on the threat of jail, versus you saying something and your peers telling you you're wrong and you should shut up. I wish people wouldn't be so shitty about that, and try to engage in a more productive discussion, but... well, humanity isn't really all that great sometimes, I guess... to put it mildly.

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted either. I hope it's not just because people disagree with you, but unfortunately that does happen sometimes on HN. I really appreciate that you've taken the time to have a conversation with me here!