I didn't write the article so I don't care either way, but I think the British Empire was a thing totally on its own. Probably (probably, I'm not a historian) because its technology (both physical and organizational) was so much more superior to the lands they invaded that the normal "laws of empire physics" didn't apply.
In Australia (and NZ, and Canada, and the US, and probably in South Africa to a certain degree) their mode of operation seemed: reduce the locals to nothing (even worse than Spain), then build a fully Western-like society. Clean slate, mostly self-governed by white people who are not inclined to fight with Europe (with notable exceptions, obviously)
In India - although I don't doubt for a second they killed many many people - they seemed to operate more like the Golden Horde in Russia: as long as you pay the taxes (and occasionally provide more stuff when we run out), you can keep your culture and be governed by your local warlords, because it's just too tedious to kill all of you at once. The British did seem to have a bit more sway though, for example when they kicked off the partitioning, millions of people started moving. However, largely it seems like a brutal but mostly hands-off rule (based on mutual benefit with the local elite?)
What they did in Africa was something else, I've read books about insanely remote places like South Sudan or Zambia, and what were they doing there is hard for me to understand at all. But again, the gap in technology between the local people and them was so vast that they could do whatever they wanted without much coordination with the capital.
The Romans and other empires of the past were different because they didn't have such a huge technology gap. In case of Romans, you still fight it out with spears, swords and bare hands, and they tended to take over the lands completely, and impose their own gods, order and culture, which is much harder to do with a similar level of technology and does require coordination with the capital.