I dont think so. Right or wrong they were acting for the sake of a public health emergency. Thats really different that shutting down political criticism.
Im not familiar with the specifics of this one. If they were trying to stifle political critique, then yeah, that would be similar.
If you recall, it wasn't just the covid stuff, they got quite a bit of mileage out of that "misinformation justifies censorship" schtick.
While Covid was the bulk of it (attempts to censor theories about lab leaks, censoring content that suggested that natural immunity was effective, posts describing side effects, etc...)
There was also the Hunter Biden laptop fiasco...
As well as other things that weren't even declarative statements, but merely opinions, that would get the labelling (or de-boosted in the algorithms), for instance, shadow bans occurring if people posted things that were critical of mail-in voting -- even if those posts didn't make any declarative statements about election fraud.
Censorship of anecdotes was a thing as well... Where if a person had an anecdote (even if that experience was an extreme outlier), it was a "better censor it out of fears that readers will think that sort of thing is more common than what it is".
Also, where we'd disagree... I don't think any kind of emergency should justify that kind of censorship.
Perhaps in a different world with honest and sincere politicians, one could make a case for that with me and win me over, but that's not the world we live in. We live in the one where if they find out the rules are "As long as we claim something is an emergency, we can suspend certain rights or make changes that we wouldn't be able to do with the proper channels", they will use it to their full advantage.