No. Whataboutism fallacies were pioneered by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but when used by someone in the west, they just come off as looking extremely insecure and desperate for a workable argument.
So it is a cultural difference. While whataboutisms and moral high ground fallacies are acceptable in the east, in the west they just signal insecurity and desperation.
This was a clear what aboutism that had no argument attached to it. It was the very definition of a what aboutism, not ambiguous in the slightest. The writer even starts out with the proverbial glass house! And then states something about the USA pulling out of the climate accord, which is relevant to censorship? Even as whataboutisms go, this one is not even on topic.
They could have replaced that whole paragraph by "what aboutism america!" And no information would have been lost.
Seriously, what aboutisms have no place in serious discussions.
So it is a cultural difference. While whataboutisms and moral high ground fallacies are acceptable in the east, in the west they just signal insecurity and desperation.