It is obvious these processes are worded differently. One is phrased as a demand combined with a clear and credible threat. The other is phrased as a request.
The difference is so obvious that I have to assume you also see it. What point are you trying to make then? You believe that if YouTube did not comply congress would fine YouTube or slow down its traffic in the US?
they don't even need to make a threat, it didn't even have to pass legislation. A partisan congressional group made a request because it suited them and Google buckled like a belt.
in my opinion it's far worse, it's a flagrant display of extra governmental soft power the likes of which would not be symmetrical for the opposing party.
The former is coercive, and the other is not. Unless details are completely meaningless here, and we’re just making any equivalences we can come up with.
Sort of... The feds usually drop hints before cracking down with a heavier hand, and I don't think this is that far removed from it. So there's a bit of an implicit threat.
Even if you disagree with that assessment, however, it's worth noting that the 1st amendment specifically bars congress from making law which would infringe on freedom of speech. So, IMO, it's a bit improper for them to write pseudo-official letters asking for censorship.
It is still not so clear to which one is which. For a resident of a country a requests by its government is always more dangerous in the sense that they can enforce it easily and cause you personal problems for not complying. As for another country, the spelled out threat is a slower connection. It's hard to imagine Kremlin would ban Google completely as it would be another step back to the previous century - I doubt Russian people would approve it.
The difference is so obvious that I have to assume you also see it. What point are you trying to make then? You believe that if YouTube did not comply congress would fine YouTube or slow down its traffic in the US?