[AnthonyMouse]

The site in question is presumably not hosted in Moldova, so the thing you're suggesting is unworkable. Suppose country A has common carriage laws that prohibit a provider from denying service without a court order and the thing being hosted in country A is legal in country A but not country B. If the provider removes it they're in violation of the laws of country A, where it's being hosted. If they can now be found in violation of the laws of country B, where it isn't being hosted but is illegal, that's a catch 22.

Moreover, it's pointless to expect that to do any good because the customer could obviously just use a provider that operates in country A but not in country B. Therefore, a presence in country B should be irrelevant when that isn't where the customer is because you're otherwise just setting up a catch 22 for no benefit.

[immibis]

Then they have to withdraw from one of those countries. There's no law that says you can ignore laws that conflict with laws from other countries.

If you want to use a GPL library and a proprietary library then you aren't allowed to - you can't choose to ignore the one you like the least.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Then they have to withdraw from one of those countries.

This is equivalent to saying that no company can have operations is more than one country. Countries have so many laws that there will be a conflict between them somewhere.

The obvious and longstanding solution is for the company to set up a foreign subsidiary and then the subsidiary in that country complies with that country's laws. But that's not the same thing as expecting the subsidiaries in other countries to comply with the laws of a country they're not in.

[immibis]

But they ARE in that country.

[AnthonyMouse]

What's "they"? The Cloudflare subsidiary in Moldova is presumably a different entity than the one in the US. The issue is they're trying to enforce the law of Moldova against the US corporation for things it does in the US.