No. They were announcing crackdowns and punishments well before He Jiankui announced anything. This article, for example, is from several weeks before, and records punishments initiated well before that: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07222-2
Because sharing like that is done routinely, is generally accepted, and has not created a massive uproar like the CRISPR scandal did. I'm not making a moral judgement, just pointing out that this citation doesn't support the above-posted arguments since it's in a different-enough domain.
If you had posted official CRISPR rules (like the Asilomar Conference Guidelines) created by the community with some authority, that would have been better. To my knowledge, the CRISPR community didn't publish such things, just agreed, informally, to some unofficial guidelines. So it's not super-suprising to me that somebody skirted those unofficial guidelines.
> Because sharing like that is done routinely, is generally accepted, and has not created a massive uproar
It obviously is not accepted (that's the whole point of that link!), and genetic and health information sharing routinely creates controversies, ranging from insufficient diversity to worries about AI (see DeepMind & NHS). So your premises are just wrong.
