In the United States, your example is explicitly protected by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It is the legal defense of arms manufacturers who's product is sold legally and in good faith but is used by a third-party for illegal actions.

Rather than a vague insinuation that this group has taken some action deserving of economic blackballing, perhaps you could point to some specific action this group has done?

Sure you can. Gun makers do it all the time!

Which terrorist groups, specifically? And what support are they offering specifically?

You say provide tools for communication. Presumably that's every communication platform worldwide - almost undoubtably some sort of terrorist has used each of them.

>They are making and providing tools that enable communication specifically for Far Left groups, some of which are terrorist groups.

As per a government who puts cycling and expressing distaste for inflation in the same camp.

> So I don't think this is as innocent as they seem.

Well, they are innocent until proven guilty.

> They are making and providing tools that enable communication specifically for Far Left groups, some of which are terrorist groups.

By all means, present something that shows they are knowingly supporting terrorist groups so we might judge for ourselves.

I mean, we have organizations that supported the January 6th terrorists that haven't had anything done to them, so I'm looking for something more serious than murder, storming the capital, riots, attacking the police force, and attempted assassination of a Vice President.

Without judging this or trying to axiomatically derive the logic, I think the claim here is that a/I knowingly and deliberately provides services to the PKK, which the US and the EU designate as a terrorist organization.