Which would you prefer?
That they stick to their principles and pull out of the country entirely. Yes, it sacrifices revenue, but it also sends a very important message.
As SypheDMar said:
'cause searching sucked in China when Google was gone, and Baidu and Gougou were not better alternatives.
India is [on paper] a democracy. You want to see a ripple effect? Deprive a democracy of over a billion people (granted, only a proportion of whom have Internet access) of their ability to access Google's services, Facebook, and every other social media and search service their courts are trying to censor. I guaranfrickintee you there will be immediate and loud backlash from the Internet-savvy populace.
The point: these services claim to abide by principles designed to foster open dialogue and ultimately, freedom of expression. They need to stand by them. THAT provides encouragement for change, not bowing to the status quo.
So yeah, I'd rather they left and forced these governments to inflict the less-popular less-functional and actively-censored alternatives on their populations, then watch the defecation hit the ceiling-mounted oscillator.
EDIT:
Imagine the conversation:
Indian internet user: "Holy crap, why can't I access any of my Google accounts, Facebook, Youtube, Blogger, or a variety of other services that I know and love?"
Indian government: "Well, we passed a law requiring censorship so we don't offend some people's religious sensibilities and these services won't play cricket. Sorry. You'll have to make do with these functionally-inferior alternative services that don't mind censoring what they show you."
IIU: "Isn't this a democracy that support freedom of expression?"
IG: "Of course! But only certain types of expression. You understand, we can't go letting people access material that might offend them, even though they can choose not to see it. That might foster division. Better we just pretend it doesn't exist."
IIU:
