I think that's leaving out a lot of context that the "Controversies" section of that Wikipedia entry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Controversies, better explains.

First, in 2006, there was still a general belief I think that Western companies could profitably exist in China and be, if not a "force for good", than at least a force for slightly more openness. Google's options were either to not be in China at all, or to be in China and abide by their laws. So when they censored search results in the 2006-2010 time period, at least they told you they were doing it and that it was at the demands of Chinese authorities. I think it's a fair debate to have on either side whether this was a good thing, but I think it's a gross oversimplification to present that this was a simple black-and-white decision and that Google "never had a problem censoring their results."

Perhaps you could quote something from that section that you feel is relevant here. It didn't look relevant to me.

> Google's options were either to not be in China at all, or to be in China and abide by their laws.

OK. So, they chose "be in China and abide by their laws", and you think it makes sense to characterize that as "they left the market rather than bend the knee"? Those are exactly opposite descriptions. They bent the knee rather than leave the market. That's what happened.