> Would you maintain that it is unethical even if the large majority of the people directly affected by the censorship think otherwise?

Yes. The principle of free speech is a fundamental American value and it should be upheld by American companies.

For them to sacrifice core values for access to a foreign market is unethical. I have no expectations that Facebook will be ethical, but the point of having values is that you stick to them. Otherwise they are just preferences.

If they don't take a stand in China then they won't take a stand in America either.

The Chinese people couldn't possibly care less whether they have access to Facebook or not, and the ones who do already have VPNs.

Well, in that case, we're at an impasse. I'm a consequentialist and care about the outcome more than the principles. I might agree with you in a world where American companies upholding "American values" exerts pressure on the Chinese government, but it doesn't.

The idea that Facebook has any chance to exert pressure on the Chinese government in the first place is not only imperialist but laughably unrealistic.

When South Africa had partheid, American companies disinvested themselves of the country. At that time, South Africans probably would have preferred to be able to buy Pepsi products. But economic isolation was the right thing to do.

If only they did that in WW2 as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II

China is the second largest economy in the world after the US and expected to surpass it within a couple of years, not really comparable. Its government is also largely supported by the people it governs.