Not really. Most good laws prohibit things most good people wouldn't actually do, and are mostly effective even if a few people don't follow them. So you start off with 80% compliance before you even pass the law, then you get another 15% because the people who might have done it accept that there is a law against and it don't consider it worth breaking the law. So you get >95% compliance, which is generally good enough to be effective even if there is the occasional scofflaw.

Restricting information sharing on the internet is the complete opposite. If there was no law then everybody would do it, many people will fight you on principle to the point of overt civil disobedience, and if even one source is available the whole thing falls apart -- including from other countries you have no jurisdiction over.