Netflix is available in 190 countries [0]. That's an advantage over a traditional distributor. But it ties their hands on what kind of content they can make. A large enough country will certainly hold sway over what's allowed to be on Netflix, even if they only air it elsewhere.
Apple TV+ is an even bigger problem because of Apple's dependence on China. Doesn't matter if Apple TV+ is even available there. It simply cannot produce content that China finds objectionable. China has chastised companies for much less [1] [2].
You do realize we're on an American website, talking about an article in an American publication about how American streaming services won't play this film, and which references the decline of "American film culture," right? I don't think 189 of those countries particularly matter for purposes of this discussion, and I don't see anyone claiming that, say, China, has any independent and democratic institutions at all, much less media.
I think he was trying to say that the NYTimes has no relevant Chinese market so it can’t be coerced by chinese regulations or threatened with a destruction of that part of their business. Global platforms can be threatened, so they adapt their content strategy.
I don't see where NYT was mentioned at all, and, as I mentioned, what Netflix and Amazon do in the other 189 countries doesn't have much to do with what they can and do do in the US.
I believe you're wrong on that last point. The Chinese market is large enough that it absolutely does impact what American media companies do, both in China and elsewhere (including within the US).
I didn't say "American media companies." I said "Netflix and Amazon." Both are perfectly capable of, and, in fact, do block certain titles in certain countries for political reasons. They certainly do it for licensing reasons, which, I suppose you can interpret as political, in a way. If they wanted to, Hulu and Disney and all the other streaming services could do the exact same thing. That was my entire point.