>> IMO countries would be totally reasonable to demand that the moderation decisions for the citizens of their countries be made by people in-country, following their local laws, inside their jurisdiction.

> Moderation decisions are not and should not be determined solely by what's legal.

For sure. Following the laws of the country you want to operate in is just the bare minimum. Additional considerations can be taken, of course.

>> Ultimately, whether or not we like it, most countries have some restrictions on speech. Countries want somebody in their jurisdiction to represent the company

> The former is an excellent reason to refuse the latter.

This is where we are, the next step in this back-and-forth is that entities without any local representation get blocked.

> Following the laws of the country you want to operate in is just the bare minimum.

Absolutely. Countries you operate in, meaning countries you actually employ people in and do business in and have a legal nexus in. Being accessible over the Internet is not "operating in" a country, even if that country might wish to claim otherwise.

Well, however you want to call it—as I noted at the end of that comment, we’re currently living in the result of companies trying to serve users in countries without actually operating there. The result is that countries don’t really mind blocking them.

Having direct business to consumers relations with the people of a country is doing business in that country, even if the multinational corporation claims otherwise

Direct contact without any money is not business.

That's like arguing a Seattle coffee roaster is doing business in Nepal because someone in Nepal called them on the phone.

i have not checked every service affected in Nepal, but i would assume most of them require a user account, which includes agreeing to a contract that establishes a b2c relation. Such a relationship does not necessarily require payment, and is not at all comparable to calling someone.