Magnitudes will always be different, but also irrelevant. If a system allows censorship to happen magnitudes of censorship will shift depending on the threat to

Magnitudes will always be different, but also irrelevant. If a system allows censorship to happen magnitudes of censorship will shift depending on the threat to established power. If powers are threatened you bet they will leverage more or less censorship to preserve their power as the situation demands. So a more stable society will enjoy more censorship, and a less stable one may employ more, but that is constantly shifting and pointless to compare. What is important to compare is the awareness of the participants that the system isn't fundamentally different (both systems allow for censorship, and actively employ it to control and preserve power). The problem isn't where this is more or less censorship, it's that in America we're taught that censorship, propaganda, and such dystopian tools are something unique to the Soviet Union, communists, China, etc, when really it's a universal tool employed by everyone from Donald Trump's office to Kellog's cereal commercials, and yes, the Communist Party of China. Yea sure, we have a million news outlets and China maybe has one, but if these tools are employed by those in power to preserve their power then you can be the people here in power employ them too. At the end of the day our million news outlets don't matter if 99% of the power is concentrated in 1%. It creates an illusion that there is independence when really the only thing matter is who has power and is in control, because they can rally these "independent" players when needed.