It's pretty clear that access to information has very little to do with what the government actually does or whose interests it represents. For example, here's what a study analyzing many decades of US policy had to conclude

What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

US gives people the right to scream into the void while any tangible freedoms they had have been stripped away long ago. The public has no agency within the political system, and their interests aren't represented. Everybody knows this, and nobody can do anything about it. The US is an open dictatorship of capital, but you get this intangible free speech that can't actually be translated into any meaningful action. And when people do try to use their speech to effect change then the government murders them as seen with MLK, Fred Hampton, Assange, and many others.

If you think this is a better model for society than what China is doing, I really don't know what else to tell you. At least in China the government demonstrably works in the interest of the working majority. I'll take that over free speech absolutism any day.