Even though in many cases there's literally no servers, no offices, no business in a country. Or worse, you have India, which just mandates you do have an office, which is an unbelievably bullshit way to get their sneaky talons into the entire rest of the world's business.
Nation's need a limit to jurisdiction. They are not respecting that on the internet, their people are travelling abroad. Until nation's can start to recognize some limit to sovereignty, there is no moral or ethical obligation to fulfill their limitless absurd egotistical power-mongering. It is good that we ignore this illegitimate unjust application of power.
But to repeat, many companies do have real legitemate business operations & physical presences in other countries. Then you do have to obey those laws.
Your obey-all-laws maximalism doesn't acknowledge any limit, & poses a stark picture of absolute lawfulness. How do we navigate conflict between nations; what happens when one countries data protection laws conflict with another countries surveillance laws? What happens when either a nation or a jurisdiction goes power mad & demands basically unfettered access? In general I don't see any reason why we would obey the laws of countries that we don't have a presence in. Your people are coming to us, your people have left your nation. If I go visit Italy I am under their jurisdiction. What's happening now is a farce, this idea that each nation has jurisdiction over the entire internet. It's just not so. There is no internet like that. The lowest-common-denominator of agreeable rights & permissions to exist & host yourself online is the null-set.