Where jurisdictions end is a bit of a tricky question, that in many cases in terms of online content is a bit murky at the edges.

From the Australian context, all the cases have been against big multinationals that have local subsidiaries, actively engage users based on geography (i.e. trending in Australia), have servers in Australia and actively court both Australian users and advertisers. Twitter, pending details of how much it has cut back under Musk, hits pretty much all of these, so in this context it's not so much as the content just being available, but instead the company clearly operating in Australia.

On the other hand, the US has at times taken a pretty extreme view of where their jurisdiction extends to i.e. if your Australian based online shop ships 1 item to the US, you are under US law.

Publishing this internationally is a tricky business, and while online business got away with a couple of decades of just pretending that laws don't matter to them, the reality is that if you are going to operate in a country/jurisdiction, you need to follow their laws or risk legal consequences, especially if they then go put themselves in the jurisdiction in person.

If the executives are worried about this, as far as I'm aware most courts are happy to count basic region IP blocking as sufficient as making the effort to not be operating in country.

Without seeing the actual correspondence/details, you have to imagine that Twitters legal position of pretending that they don't have to care about Australia/Queensland law is pretty damn weak, based on the pretty decent precedent that has been established.

Perhaps they will pull out of Australia all together, can't imagine that we are contributing a particularly large chunk of advertising dollars nowadays.

I wonder how much of this is due to the impact of the recent legislative changes and further pushes to force the disclosure of identifying information of donors to conceived children (without their consent) reducing the pool of willing donors, meaning the more, shall we say committed, donors to be a higher %.