This is the only natural conclusion in a world where sovereign countries legislate the internet according to their values and tech companies follow local laws. Regulatory backlash isn't always going to be GDPR. Sometimes it's going to be this.
Let's also remember "regulatory backlash" can mean something that threatens the personal safety and freedom of a company's employees in that country.
When talking about censorship in these places, we should consider the ethical ramifications of possibly getting someone 'disappeared' for non-compliance.
>the ethical ramifications of possibly getting someone 'disappeared' for non-compliance...
Given recent events vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia, I'm pretty sure that something a whole lot worse than being 'disappeared' happens to you. I hear the authorities there are not above using chainsaws to resolve the differences they might have with you.
Given that 'disappeared' is a euphemism for 'killed and disposed of', that depends on how much worse it is given in the end you still cease to exist on the most meaningful level.
Put another way, is it better if they feed you an exceptional mean before they kill you?
In the end, focusing on the how's instead of the why and the concrete fact they did is just a way for others to to manipulate people into feeling one way or another (or more of either) instead of just taking the hard line that it's unacceptable in any and every form.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not accusing you of manipulating people, just stating that it's just a common tactic in general.
The ideal situation is to have freedom of expression. That includes free press. It’s not a concept owned by any country or culture. It’s universlly desirable. You don’t want the government committing acts of violence against you for your speech. The lack of this freedom is morally abhorrent and condemnation-worthy.
> What is the alternative- the internet is ruled by US laws
Your notions of national sovereignty and individual freedom are so terrible,
I don’t know if I should even respond.
Individual sovereignty supersedes governmental authority in a civil-libertarian moral-political framework. No government has any sort of moral right to be violent against a person for speech.
And the concept of national sovereignty is a farce. Countries like China and SA are not even democracies, so by respecting their “sovereignty” you’re respecting the minorities in power over those countries.
But even democracies have absolutely no right to claim sovereignty — having 60% of a country’s vote will never legitimize erasing fundamental human freedoms. (Or else everything the NSDAP did would be morally A-OK.)
A general moral operating principle to apply when analyzing political issues is the “zero aggression principle”: https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org
