If taxpayer money goes into public research for example, of course the results should be shared with the masses, for examples in cases of environmental research, infrastructure research and so on. This is the attempt by an administration to control information that belongs to the public. I'm not talking about employees having the right to bash the government, but rather their obligation to share public information.
Regarding your second part: generally, government entities are more complex and ineffective than private counterparts (with some exceptions, the private health care and insurance system in the US seems like the most ineffective system I've ever seen). The reason they are less effective is because their job is to work for the people, not s small group of private shareholders. Yes, it would likely be more effective to run a country like a company, but that's because a company is not a democracy, it is rather more like a dictatorship where you can also increase your power by owning more of the vote. That works for a company but is the opposite to a democracy.
So you are confusing research boycote/censorship with social media use to divulgue it? Yep, not a overreach.
Nope, they are more inefficent because public servers don't hold themselves to a commitment to be profitable, so they accept a lot of pratices that no sane company would.
And democracy in several ways can be seem as the dictatorship of the majority, and that majority very often may be very wrong. At the time Einstein made his discoveries probably 99,99999999% of people would say he was wrong and in a democracy he would have been overuled.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"