The difference is Meta was free to refuse, and did in some cases. False equivalence.

"We were under pressure from the administration and others to do more. We shouldn't have done it."

Also: The 5th Circuit panel found that the White House coerced the platforms through “intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences” and commandeered the decision-making processes of social media companies, particularly in handling pandemic-related and 2020 election posts.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/09/08/biden-adminis...

To say they were free to refuse is disingeneous.

Yes, pressure is not the same as coercion. The 5th circuit is a notorious conservative circus show, I’ll wait for the Supreme Court’s decision.

How is "threats of adverse consequences" any different than what China does?

If a cartel member comes up to you and tells you to give him your wallet or there might be "consequences", do you think you are free to refuse him?

The US government has pressured various private orgs since forever to do stuff. Lots of stories about helping, refusals, court cases, retaliation. It's not much different than what goes on daily in the business world. Everyone will try to use their power to get their way.

However, this is contrary to China, who has never really pressured any Chinese organization to do anything. This is because they don't need to use pressure. They can just do it. Because there is no concept of "private organization" in China. The state has all the power.

It's so tellingly naive when people try to equivocate the US to China.