It might not be just, or fair, for residents of that country, but it is reasonable.
The moral question is whether American companies should help foreign governments shut down free-speech. Just like google in China. And the consensus seems to be "No."
What we (speaking as a fan of western still liberalism and rule of law) in the west need is to be better able to provide a full throated explanation and defense of our principles and value prop. There seems to be a very real movement toward an alternative authoritarian world view based on the promise of prosperity and stability through social control, social control that takes full advantage of the enormous surveillance and monitoring capabilities of modern technology.
> And the consensus seems to be "No."
Consensus is completely irrelevant when answering a moral question, unless it instrumentally affects the moral calculus.
We have the U.S.S.R., Arab Spring, and the French Revolution as fine examples of the country going to shit.
If you’re a dictator and want to transition your country to democracy (I’m not sure why you’d call that morally good, but let’s go with it), you don’t make the first thing you do to allow free speech. Free speech shouldn’t come until after you have elections.