A Canadian arrested and extradited by the Canadian authorities, according to agreements signed by the Canadian government elected by the Canadian people. While there is something to be said about American government lobbying around the world for laws and regulation beneficial to its interests, at least as perceived by the bureaucrats, it does not happen without the cooperation of (usually) democratically elected officials in other countries.
All I’m saying is that if you take the position that US companies should not be required to comply with the local laws of their users, then you should take the position that foreign companies need not be required to comply with American laws.
Either that, or hope that Twitter’s executives never hop on a flight to China and have it touch down in Frankfurt.
On the other hand, refusing to do business in oppressive locales is not the same as extraditing foreign nationals for breaking laws they had no say in and that technically shouldn't even apply to them. One is bad, the other is... not bad, to say the least.
That various cases you refer to seem wrong (I don't really have all the data) but I'm not clear why they make it OK for Twitter to potentially censor dissent in a dictatorship, for example.
Your message to the world is that if we violate your laws, you will subject us to your justice system.
Now we have a US company that does business in other countries, and those countries have laws that differ from yours. Why shouldn’t they comply with those country’s laws when the do business there, just as you expect companies in foreign jurisdictions to comply with American laws when they do business with your citizens?
My feeling is that if you don’t want Twitter censoring Nazi discussions in Germany, hand back the Canadian who sold marijuana seeds by mail to Americans.