Totally different situation. If Wikipedia somehow ended up with so much emotional influence that members of congress were getting 1000+ calls a day then maybe. Wikipedia ain't backed by the Chinese government though.

I don't see it as a different thing. Both companies use their platforms to talk about legislation they feel is negative in one way or another. Wikipedia managing to get thousands of people to call congress over a bill that would ban encryption would be hailed as a miracle of democracy here.

I see a clear difference between a non-profit campaigning against something that would affect everyone and a private company campaigning against something that only affects their bottom line.

I think that is a reasonable place to draw the line.

Congress isn't considering a ban on Wikipedia because it's mission isn't emotional manipulation for profit.

So, no.