HN has a very split mind when it comes to deciding exactly when Google is entitled to ignore the local government.
HN is comprised of a great many individuals. The differing perspectives and worldview are a good thing.
Not that I'm claiming Google itself has & will adhere to that principal. I'm speaking in general terms, that choosing which local laws to follow can be the only way to stick to your principals. Although that should also mean accepting the consequences. That is a fundamental tenant of civil disobedience: that a choice can be made to follow conscience, but also that the consequences must be accepted. In fact, that others observing the penalty may also have their conscience piqued by the injustice and also rise against it. (Generally associated with non-violent methods though, hence the "civil" inclusion with disobedience.)
For example, if your principle is "elections should be democratic and free of interference" then it's perfectly consistent to want consequences for governments who interfere with elections, while not seeing any reason to target those who let them proceed freely.
Not really directed at you but I wanted to explore this more in general:
When a corporation chooses to submit articles of incorporation to any given jurisdiction, notions of "equally legitimate" wrt any particular jurisdiction's leverage over them seems meaningless to me if such corporate operating in any given jurisdiction is not willing to risk being able to operate effectively in such jurisdiction (sure, any given corporation may have different levels of exposure to different jurisdictions, but that to me seems more a risk/reward thing and not really jurisdictional legitimacy thing, even though people may take it as a signal that holding more assets/operational capacity in a particular jurisdiction automatically gives that jurisdiction more legitimacy over another where they hold less or none at all, but that brings up another question: is a jurisdiction any less legitimate if one holds no exposure to it but others orgs do?).
If an organization is able to continue to operate within any given (claimed) jurisdiction without putting its assets/operational capacity at significant risk in such jurisdictions from any punitive actions from non compliance, then the legitimacy of any given jurisdiction is zero if we are tying exposure to such jurisdiction to its legitimacy (thus all jurisdictions would be equally legitimate with a weight of zero, which perhaps would be a better assumption than all with a weight of 1 as far as such orgs are concerned [not that all orgs can operate as such]).
"I support corporations against the governments I don't like" is a really refreshing piece of honesty, and not what most people would be brave enough to say.
I'm trying to become less principled and more pragmatic myself when it comes to politics.
Sure, Google doesn't intervene directly in any of this but they would certainly cooperate if asked. And they keep working with that government. What's the common principle besides profit and allegiance?
Each person decides on their principles. Are you making the argument that it is impossible for anyone to be truly principled, without compromise?
[0] https://64.media.tumblr.com/864c839058d5319d8b1333e613cac53c...