> EDIT: concerning hypothetical worlds, I pretty much not want to live in a world were companies blindly follow the law regardless of how harmful it is. We have tried these worlds in the past and they were not pretty.

Personally, I think a distinction is necessary. Companies IMO should absolutely obey the laws regardless of if they like them or not. It's entirely unfair to blame them for obeying the law.

They (as well as individual people) are free to oppose those laws in an attempt to change them, however until they are changed, they should follow the laws or cease trading in the country who's laws they disagree with. It's entirely fair to blame them for not fighting stupid/wrong/harmful laws.

Allowing companies to choose which laws they are going to obey is never going to end well.

> You are making a strawman. Companies are often following the law strictly or loosely as it suits them.

You're right that companies don't always obey the law. However, what has that got to do with "Personally, I'd rather a world where companies obey the law"?

My point is that companies SHOULD obey the laws, not that they always do - and that - allowing and encouraging companies to pick and choose the laws they are going to obey is wrong, and will simply not end well.

> GitHub could have warned the company before blocking and/or blocked access only from Iran. It did neither.

I'm not familiar enough with the specifics of the US laws regarding Iran to know if this is a lawful course of action to take upon a customer attempting to use your products/services from Iran.

Maybe they could have? Maybe they can't? I've no idea & I've made no attempt to address anything other than the "It's alright to blame people for lawfully following harmful laws" comment.