Sure, and people like quick solutions to problems and largely don’t think about long-term consequences. And then they’re all “surprised pikachu” when that thing inevitably morphs into something they don’t like.

Again, that’s on the given members of a society. Surveillance and blocking social are not inherently (in a physical sense) good or bad. These are social tools that can be used for good (and sometimes must be used to protect the lives of your fellow citizens) or can be used for bad.

This is a bit of a hyperbolic example, but let’s say you have a CSAM-focused social network, even without an imminent danger to society it is reasonable to block such a social network if it’s hosted in another jurisdiction.

In the US, we have a concept of an “enemy of the state,”

American concepts of “enemy of the state” and “imminent danger” don’t map one to one in the global context.

A country (Albania or otherwise) has the right to counteract influence for foreign nationals/entities on their political process. But that’s just one example.

There is also the FB and genocidal Myanmar and more recently FB and Ethiopia.

A media org is committed to journalism and communicating accurate information and good faith debate. These are not the priorities of Chines social networks (subject to control of the CCP) or Americans social network (subject to control of local oligarchs and criminal groups).

I think we’ve had a good discussion and it’s clear we have our own perspectives.

At this point, I am just trying to point out that there nuances to my OP and it’s not a matter of merely supporting government censorship. The world is a complex place and absolutes are not a viable approach.