"I don't want to support Mohammed bin Salman" needs to be traded off against "I don't want to make 34 million people have worse lives".
In my view, in nearly every case, the latter effect outweighs the former.
At least in my experience, a censored version of a foreign website is always much better than the stuff developed locally, and there are some political reasons for this I won't go into.
In my opinion, it's pure virtue signalling to argue that "a company compromising morals in a different country is bad", at least in the general case. I would totally rather use a censored version of Google over Baidu.
Arguing that "companies operating in China while censored hurts the Chinese people" is pure nonsense. The only people that care that {some company} is censored in China are distinctly people outside of China.
That's how censorship works. The people inside the bubble don't know, by design, what information has been omitted, and therefore can't care.
Just like russians are now being forced to learn to live without Ikea furniture or Intel computers, for the hopes that the complete lack of the better stuff might encourage them to think about overthrowing their oppressors.
Google with censorship is like a false hope, a kind of political PR greenwashing. The people of China use Google and think it's the same Google the rest of the world uses. It might be better to reveal the ugly truth, and say, you either get the whole truth, or no truth at all. To reveal the liars.
The idea was that the good British made the Raj more tolerable.
- - - -
Edit to add: I should point out that that strategy did not result in victory. It was famously Gandhi and the Non-violence movement who ultimately succeeded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement
Is Gandhi censored by the CCP?
Was Ghandi's method really the reason for success or does western media (& ruling class) prefer that narrative?
If you check the Wikipedia link in my previous comment you'll see that it was actually a whole epic constellation of events and forces and personalities and masses of people. Not quite the Mahabharata but still pretty epic.
The particular thing that Gandhi's "arc", if you will, achieved was to demolish utterly the rationale for the British Raj in the first place: that Indians needed outside governance. The non-violent movement showed that Indians were the moral equals or even superiors of the British, and Gandhi knew it.
Winston Churchill: What do you think of Western civilization?
Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
There are a couple camps:
Do business but censor, in the hopes that the users become aware and become promoters of your views
Don't do business as to not enable the regime to succeed and hope the potential users notice and become promoters of your views.
I think that for the most part, even companies like Google or Facebook will not be able to change a country, similar to how the US was not able to change Cuba or North Korea.
I think that there is a lack of understanding in Western society that other societies view their government/societal structure not as vehicles for increased personal freedom but as a structure to promote social stability over long periods of time(1000 of years. Something I think China is particularly proud of, for good reason).