It is difficult for state machines with their clumsy, hierarchical and often not too intelligent control system to keep up with the grown-up indigo children and other young geniuses. Therefore, the old and proven way is a system of prohibitions, blockages and repressions. Roughly speaking, a baton against chess.
It is difficult for states (and there is often nothing to do) to get involved in multi–way intellectual games – you can lose devastatingly on this field. It’s easier to build a system of restrictions and try to take control. Or at least to direct it in some direction, even if it is an obscure current. The success of this policy is difficult to assess – time will tell. But the fact is that it is almost impossible to create a system of total control without the same control at the physical level.
You can keep people in fear, but it is very difficult to deprive them of the very opportunity to do something.
As examples, North Korea and China: in the first case, control over the Internet is based on total control of all spheres of life (there is no public access to the global network in free access). In the case of China, even the glorious “Golden Shield” that restricts access to certain resources is not able to restrict access for everyone.
On the other hand, these measures are often enough: if you block the resource of an opposition figure or media, then 90% (or even more) of users will not unnecessarily look for a way to access the blocked resource. And a few motivated people will find an opportunity to circumvent the restrictions in any case. In this sense, such a state policy is rational and brings results. Another question is whether for a long time and whether this solves the problem as a whole, or postpones it for later, creating the potential for threats in the future.