There is indeed an enormous difference, but I find this reasoning funny: when a government issues an order by fiat, there is no ambiguity with regards to your consent. You can either be on board or not; either way, there is a clear line between your opinion (and therefore what you will) and what is dictated to you.

This can’t be said for nudges: the entire point of an effective nudge is that you can’t be certain that you aren't acting of your own volition. That strikes me as a much worse state of affairs: not only are you controlled, but you don’t even know it!

TL;DR: two years after this entire fracas, it’s apparent that the government’s ability to force you to do anything w/r/t public health is mostly hollow. Meanwhile, the continence of our actions online seems to be increasingly shaky.

> You can either be on board or not

Not exactly, you can be on board or suffer whatever punitive action is designed to "incentivize" you. You can't just politely decline to comply or participate.

> not only are you controlled, but you don’t even know it

I don't think we should equate "being controlled" - which is a rather horrific thing when done directly with the threat of violence - with being nudged. When you are nudged, you are in fact acting of your own volition. If you disagree you have to define what "your own volition" means exactly. To me it means acting in the absence of a threat of violence.

> the government’s ability to force you to do anything w/r/t public health is mostly hollow

Plenty of business owners were arrested and imprisoned for refusing to comply with public health measures. Many, many more suffered the closure of their business and the loss of their livelihoods by complying.