[jjmarr]

Even assuming this is technically feasible (a premise others don't believe), it is ethically wrong to cut off an entire country from the Internet because a small portion of the population are committing crimes.

Imagine a large American city getting cut off from Facebook because there are many people selling shoplifted items on FB Marketplace and your underfunded govt doesn't have the financial ability to crack down on them. The average person would lose all contact with friends and family because some people are using a service to commit crimes.

[ben_w]

There's a right to life, there's no right to social media.

I think it's fine to cut off FB entirely in response… but then, I also think FB monetised what was previously free, collecting rent on being social, and as such everyone will be better off if it gets blocked in their area.

Including the advertisers. Sales can't exceed global income, so at this point the extra ad slots being forced everywhere only serve to make the advertisers part of a Nash game to spend ever more to fight each other for the same potential reward.

[delfinom]

It's not wrong, it's politics.

Said country affected can sign an extradition treaty to restore access.

[mikrotikker]

They can use other communication services