False equivalence - the one has nothing to do with the other.

They do, if you take a moralistic attitude, as op has. It’s hypocrisy. If you just don’t care about Chinese market then say so—don’t pretend you do so out of a moral obligation.

You're making assumptions about the beliefs of OP that aren't in evidence. A "moralistic attitude" (as you put it) can give greater weight to concerns about government censorship than to concerns about corporate respect for privacy rights. The two are quite different, even to an avowed anti-statist such as myself.

That’s why I stated it as a question.

I still think it’s hypocrisy to care about one and not the other. Those corporations are actually actively working to erode Internet freedoms, which affects everyone, not just a single country, and one that is not even democratic in the first place.

To get on your high horse over censorship in Asia while at the same time merrily include spying in your own code, as a simple convenience, nonetheless, is very much indefensible.

This is a very strange comment. First, there is no indication that GP doesn't care about the other things you mention. But more importantly: why don't you care about Chinese government's censorship? Are you saying that the censorship is OK because multinational corporations doing something? How is it even related?

It may not be your intention, but you appear to be defending the practice of censorship and demanding others to share your disinterest in the matter. That won't work, not because google and fb tracking everything on the web is good, but because censorship is bad.

EDIT: I'd like to know what made my downvoters do their thing?

Hosting your assets locally is not “supporting censorship.”

Who says he/she doesn't care about privacy from multinational corporations? I care about both.

Well, he seems to be defending the practice of using CDN libraries, and the article talks about how this practice, which he says he won't change, invades user privacy.