> Can you really call it a public service if its not accessible to the public? Maybe a "Americas/Europe"-only service, but then it would sound questionable...

The Seattle Public Library is a public service despite not allowing residents of Guangzhou to borrow books.

That is false. They can apply for a visitor card - which has a $25 fee.

In any case, physical goods and services are not analogous to digital goods and services. Or are you redoing the the piracy-is-stealing argument??

I'm doing the "it's still a 'public service' even if there are location restrictions" argument, since almost anything I can think of as a typical example of a "public service" (police, fire, medical, education, access to courts, etc.) also have location restrictions and we call all of those things "public services".

If you want a special definition of "public service" that means "accessible every human on earth without any exclusions" then that's fine, but telling someone something isn't a public service because you want to use a special definition of the phrase that no one else seems to use is a bit... overly argumentative?

Fair enough, I didn't mean to be argumentative but I accept your criticism.

I think the commenter wouldn't have any issue calling it an "Americas/Europe"-only service and by his (and arguably, my) logic, it doesn't sound questionable. One has to make choices.

think it is totally fine. Most the web is build around ASCII text any way. Since he is running it on his own dime, it is totally ok to not have Chinese/Russian visitors.