I describe my sentiment more precisely. By "these companies" I refer to entities or even individuals who take a very simplistic view toward this issue (Blocking of Signal by Iranian government).

In this simplistic viewpoint, issues in 3rd world countries (even this naming is condescending) are assumed to be evident. In this case an evil government versus oppressed people who can not even communicate with each other freely. So 'we' good people must help these poor people against their oppressive government.

This is in contrast to a much more nuanced view of the issues in the west. End-to-end encryption is a debated issue in the US and EU and legislators have proposed laws to ban it or enforcing other mechanisms to circumvent by law enforcement such as backdoors.

I mentioned the US as an example, because of Signal is operating under US jurisdiction. Moreover, the recent events in the US demonstrated that how a supposedly stable democracy is vulnerable to chaos. In this situation the tech companies decided to limit the communication of people or access to their platform for the greater good (according to them). I am not stating whether this is good or bad. I just want to point out that the issue is complex, nuanced and needs debate in the society. Keep in mind that the US is a superpower surrounded by two oceans and two friendly countries and has no serious external threat.

This is in contrast to Iran which is in a chaotic region and surrounded by the US military bases. It has suffered wars and coup in its recent history. It is currently under harsh economic sanctions with a possible goal of people revolting. The Iranian government has reasons to be paranoid and fearful that Signal can be used to organize violent demonstration. They cannot even demand information regarding criminal cases such as drug trafficking from these tech companies.

In the US the decision of giving access to tools and platforms is out-sourced to companies but in most part of the world governments make these kind of policies (again not necessarily good or bad).

I don't have a solution to these problems and I am not trying to say that we have an equivalence here. What I am expecting is a more nuanced and sophisticated perspective toward the issue.

> This is in contrast to a much more nuanced view of the issues in the west. End-to-end encryption is a debated issue in the US and EU and legislators have proposed laws to ban it or enforcing other mechanisms to circumvent by law enforcement such as backdoors.

It looks to me like you try to cloud your false argument in whataboutisms based upon a profound lack of knowledge:

> I mentioned the US as an example, because of Signal is operating under US jurisdiction.

The reason Signal is a good way to go is because this doesn't matter. Signal doesn't save any conversations they can hand over to the US (or other) government.

> This is in contrast to Iran which is in a chaotic region and surrounded by the US military bases.

Yeah, yeah I get it. We all do. US = bad but how does it change anything for the oppressed people in Iran we can help here? If those would have been people in the US, we'd be doing the same thing for them here in the EU.

> What I am expecting is a more nuanced and sophisticated perspective toward the issue.

A whataboutism and derailment of the issue is neither nuanced nor sophisticated. It's quite shady and ignorant.

Here is something you can do to help people out but instead of doing that, you try to build some weird case which actually helps the Iranian government.