This is interesting. I agree, to some extent, but there's nuance in what do you include in the objectification of the concept. The usual argument, as I perceive it, is that we can be objective if we just quantify protocol interference, or DPI, or bogus DNS resolution.
But still, not all blocks are born equal. That's a bit of beating around the bush to avoid going one level up in the abstraction of information controls. There's a thin line between content moderation at the platform level and mandatory hijacking of the DNS system via legal means.
If you squint, they are just a different configuration in the phase space of distributed technical systems, corporations operating in nation-states, and national laws.
Just a hypothesis: the fact that there's no need for an American firewall might be a consequence of the information controls being enacted at the level of platform moderation, or DNS resolution.
(I agree with you about authoritarianism in a political sense, but I'm trying to look at the informational "water" in which we're swimming in).
But that is precisely what I was talking about. You do not seem to find any commonality between censoring different categories of websites or apps. As far as I understand it, "media", "gambling", "porn", "politics" are quite common categories when researching (and defining) online censorship. See, for instance, https://censoredplanet.org/censoredplanet
You say "banned", but that is not quite the same as "censored". Just try and search, you will see the US "bans" and China or Iran "censor". Perhaps one regime's "censorship" is experienced as "lawfully banned" from within the context of their legal and cultural system.
And no, I don't see why would I keep my edgy observations to myself. That would be self-censorship :)
Without wanting to enter into ideological debate too much, it seems a contradiction to invoke such rules when precisely the country we're talking about has boosted their GDP by selling products that capitalized on the effective minimization of borders in the information age.
What I mean is: maybe it's not about protecting "their" humans (from what, exactly?), but protecting "their" corporations. Which is a very different goal.
There's an interesting cognitive bias in the western media that tends to define freedom of the press (and freedom of expression) as exactly what is perceived as freedom in this side of the iron curtain.
Libgen domains are "seized", and tiktok "goes dark", but of course other countries "censor" porn or news outlets.
But still, not all blocks are born equal. That's a bit of beating around the bush to avoid going one level up in the abstraction of information controls. There's a thin line between content moderation at the platform level and mandatory hijacking of the DNS system via legal means.
If you squint, they are just a different configuration in the phase space of distributed technical systems, corporations operating in nation-states, and national laws.