How differently would have information technology developed if most of the world were under authoritarian regimes instead of liberal democracies? Would encryption have been more restricted?

I mean its not even too late for this to happen starting like right now 2025, right?

No, it's not. The US, and increasingly the rest of the western world, is infected by a bunch of politicians who think '1984' is an instruction manual rather than a cautionary tale.

IT being used to weaponize surveillance against the people is happening right now.

amateur radio was illegal to encrypt

Amateur radio is still illegal to encrypt (with some exceptions for controlling satelites), because private communication isn't the point of amateur radio.

Besides, (in most countries) there are some topics that are illegal to talk over amateur radio about, mainly stuff like politics and religion. You're also not allowed to offer telecommunication services (i.e. pass messages on for others). Enforcing those sorts of laws would be impossible with encryption.

But to answer your question: I think we probably wouldn't have had an internet. Authoritarian regimes thrive on stability and maintaining the status quo, I think someone high up would have quickly decided that developing that sort of tech is too risky.

if most of the world were under authoritarian regimes instead of liberal democracies?

Well, most of the world is actually under authoritarian regimes and not liberal democracies.

So what is it what you are asking?

Look at Iran before and now. Irak before and now.. there is a reason we have Arabic numerals. You don't have to wait .. look at how many advancements come for democratic vs undemocratic..

Late Soviet Union might be a similar to what you are looking for? I wasn't alive back then, but from what I recall from reading old science magazines as a kid, there were few home computers, lots of "radio-hobbyist" stuff (DIY electronics from radio to computers), and praise for "inventor and rationalizer" for the good of the people. On paper at least. I think most interpersonal communication was over the phone or amateur radio, or even telegrams.

I don't know much about how modern China goes about it though.

But TBF it's very difficult to speculate about message encryption. Thinking back from my own experience, digital communication (over the internet or even SMS over cell phone networks) was not common until 90s-2000s, and encrypting them became a concern not too long ago, early 2010s I think? Before that, it was HTTP (without the S) and unencrypted AIM chats over the Jabber protocol.

I mean, amateur radio was illegal to encrypt

Was? I'm not familiar with a jurisdiction that presently allows licensed amateur radio operators to send encrypted or even obfuscated messages, with the unique exception of control-and-command instructions for amateur radio satellites. The whole exercise of ham radio is to openly communicate, with other frequencies and services available for encrypted comms and whatever else.

To be abundantly clear, I very much support encryption because it keeps good people honest and frustrates bad people. But it's hard to see how, for ham radio, encryption could be reconciled with the open and inviting spirit that has steered the radio community for over a century. In a lot of ways, hams were doing FOSS well before the acronym came into existence.

I have great admiration for the radio operators, precisely because when all the major infrastructure falters, it takes only a battery and a wire up a tree to recover some semblance of connectivity.

(this is entirely tangential to the OP's question, but I feel like hams deserve a good word every so often. Also, I understand that last weekend was ARRL Field Day in the USA)

I always say and think about all this from the perspective of billionaires .... all they ever care about is money and the free flow of money everywhere. As long as money is moving and people believe in it, praise it and worship it, everything else can be tolerated and controlled.

The internet and free flowing communication allows for money to flow a lot .... without it money would quickly become segmented into tight regions and countries and everything becomes closed .... which makes it harder for money to flow, which makes it harder for a billionaire to make more money.

Same with World War or even nuclear war ... I don't think it will ever happen on purpose because once that first bomb goes off, billionaires will cease to be billionaires as the world financial system collapses. The billionaires won't care how many millions die, they'll be more upset that their imaginary digitally managed wealth will either decrease a lot or even completely. They know that in a post apocalyptic world, no one will care if you claim to be a billionaire if banks no longer exist. You might say that billionaires will have gold stashes around to fund their own personal army .... but that won't work either because their army will just kill them to take the wealth.

All of it is possible because of human greed .... all of it is under threat because of human greed .... and all of it is held in balance because of human greed.

If a networked system of computers existed, it would probably look a more like Minitel and be very tightly controlled. I would expect that all computer communication would be available to be reviewed by various government agencies.