Bah, minor inconveniences, fix it next cycle.

Ok, so badly phrased, yes companies will do geo fencing principally for security threat containment. If a company has no means to serve customers in a region they may also block access to avoid people making orders that can’t be fulfilled.

Denying service that they functionally can perform because of the whims of politicians and politically minded actors is a foolish behavior though. Every place on earth has some wing of society that would prefer isolationist and ultra conservative practices, to self censor to the lowest common denominator is going to only push away those users who aren’t zealots.

GeoIP fencing is an eternal whack-a-mole, I’ve had to track down issues where a site owned by MS was blocked because they bought some public IP space previously owned by countries the client blocks.

In the end you have countries trying to get a piece of the pie from a company that they have no ties to but being unwilling to upset the people living there by taking an effort to block it. If they think the company is behaving incorrectly then it’s on them to deny access to their citizens that they have to answer to.

A company can’t reasonably decide which jurisdictions and IPs it should serve at any given time. If I don’t want a site in my house I don’t petition them to block my IP.

By that token, I could start my own private Island nation, make some batty rules, log into a site, and demand a bajillion dollars because my laws say so.

Internet doesn’t work that way, access is not presence of operations.