I'm not going to comment on American ignorance. My statement was in regards to access to information or the ability to speak/publish it without reprisal, specifically in comparison with Russia.

How people make use of that, or ignore it all together, are a separate topic.

Information access is has diminishing relevance in an attention economy.

That's actually an excellent point. I don't concede my overall argument that having access is still superior, even if rarely used (compare to this [0]) but your comment-- simply stated but deeply meaningful-- raises an important question: how much does the distinction between access & active suppression matter when other forces render the outcomes substantially similar? Trying to answer that with any substance is probably beyond the scope of a message board, so I won't try except to give my brief opinion that yes, the distinction still matters.

But thank you for revealing the question to me with such clarity.

[0] from the "live" log on WaPo, so I don't have a direct link to this entry: "MOSCOW — Russia’s tech and communications regulator launched a probe Saturday into 10 independent media outlets that have not parroted the Kremlin’s line on the invasion of Ukraine