Believe it or not, that's the case I was thinking of when I asked, "just because they're allowed to criticize them?" A multi-national corporation like Apple having the freedom to criticize the US government doesn't mean that it has freedom from control, given that it's a US company. If Apple had similar criticisms during a much more critical moment (e.g., a war) or wanted to commit a critical act (e.g., transfer their chip design to be done primarily in China), they could very well find themselves subject to a clause in some vague, national security or espionage act.

Jack Ma was criticizing China's strategy for minimizing risk in its financial system, essentially arguing for more risk that could harm ordinary people to benefit his company, Ant Group. Unlike the US, much of the financial sector in China is state-owned, so it makes sense that they would follow the state's line. The worst that happened to him is that he had to step away from roles in his companies and stay out of public image, which is very different to the image of being disappeared.

Both of their companies are under their respective state's control. The only difference seems to be what you're willing to recognize as control, since I'm much more interested in what happens when push comes to shove.