There’s a vast chasm between the government being used as a tool for collective action (like when forcing human-friendly business regulations) and government being used as a tool for control.
Let's create an example, which is not all that hypothetical. There seems to be an increasingly large body of evidence indicating that social media is simply a net ill, potentially quite a severe one, on society. Do you begin to censor/prohibit it, or do you allow it to run mostly as it will? In our culture the answer is clear. We value freedom as something in and of itself, even when the outcomes it produces are not desirable. Yet it's certainly not particularly hard to imagine that another culture might see that eliminating these sort of events would be something that would contribute towards a 'healthier' society, even if we remove any notion of government control from however 'healthier' is defined. The actors making decisions in both cases would believe they're acting in a 'human friendly way' yet come to completely different conclusions.
Doesn't matter how deep. It's a short jump. The former is a characterization of the latter. They achieve the same goals and someone is awaiting their turn to use that tool.