Companies at that scale can easily show different posts in different regions. It requires principles to remain a “natural resource” but it’s probably the most moral position to take if you believe your service helps better humanity (whether or not fb does that is a different discussion).

I am going to remove morality from the discussion temporarily, and instead talk about how practical that is.

A post breaks a law in 100 countries, but does not break the law in 20 countries. Should all 100 countries file their own removal process? Should there be an army of reviewers who are knowledgeable about all laws reviewing all posts? What about that confusion that different people from different regions are seeing different timelines for the same user.

The US has Federal Laws, State Laws, and City Laws. All of these are laws of the land. No company can keep up with all local laws.

"Breaking the law" is highly subjective by itself. Take the US for example, we have "Freedom of Speech," but that does not protect all speech. Many of these cases go to court taking years to determine if something was or was not protected. Should meta defer all moderation to the legal court system?

What you are suggesting makes sense in a vacuum, but cannot exist in reality.

Okay, what's the alternative? Only following US law? That's just going to end up with the service being blocked in other countries. Follow the strictest law? The you end up having to cave to blasphemy laws in despotic countries.

Well, not specific to US law… but it’s good for companies to simply only follow the laws of their own home nation. If this creates an unfair situation, then the country’s can work together to come to consensus.

I would love to see the allied governments talk more about trade pacts, and economic issues.

As for getting your service blocked, look at the GDPR for example. People will self censor themselves entirely if you are important enough. Out of mere fear of being sued over cookies, US regional media sites stopped displaying in Europe voluntarily. That’s something tin pot dictators couldn’t do even when they were clear the content of US news sites was illegal to the point of being punishable by death.

This is a terrible idea, and is how the whole ‘flag of convenience’ thing came to exist. Desperate countries will sell their lawmaking to the highest bidder (are you could argue that this already happens with taxation laws).

The idea that a company could do something blatantly illegal in my country because it’s legal someplace else is just crazy. Teslas are made in the US, should they follow US road rules when in left hand driving countries?

TikTok for example?

That doesn't address the point at all. Russia would be just as happy to prosecute facebook for letting pro-ukrainian propaganda stay up anywhere anyway, and what exactly is facebook meant to show a facebook user in Crimea? Russian propaganda or Ukrainian?

Sometimes breaking the law is the moral thing to do.

We shouldn't participate in promoting hateful lies used to justify genocide it isn't morally neutral nor is neutrality a virtue.

Such a stance would negate any claim of bettering humanity and represent moral injury to engineers you ask to possess such a hateful species of neutrality.