> I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is

If you can forget that a position is extreme, doesn't that imply that it's a relatively unoffensive and reasonable position? For actual extreme positions like "reduce housing scarcity by murdering some category of people" or "mitigate climate change by prohibiting human reproduction", does anyone need to be reminded that they're extreme?

> the idea that once something is on the internet, national law simply ceases to apply and governments should have absolutely zero control over obscene material, IP infringment, harassment, libel, foreign propaganda, money laundering, fraudulent financial services, gambling, and so on - simply because it's hosted in a different country.

Is this any different than the premise of sovereignty to begin with?

If you live somewhere gambling is illegal you can get on a flight to Las Vegas. If you want to buy a gun and go to the range to shoot it, or buy a piece of land where you can keep your gun, you can go to Texas, even though there are countries where guns and private land ownership by non-citizens are illegal. If you want to use certain drugs you can go to certain other countries.

Isn't the extreme position that a country should be able to control what you do even when you're willingly choosing to do it in another jurisdiction? Do the people own the government or does the government own the people?

▲

pjc50 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Isn't the extreme position that a country should be able to control what you do even when you're willingly choosing to do it in another jurisdiction?

Well, which jurisdiction applies to Spanish Internet users in Spain and Spanish ISPs?

Doesn't the US claim global tax jurisdiction on its nationals?

▲

AnthonyMouse 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Well, which jurisdiction applies to Spanish Internet users in Spain and Spanish ISPs?

The Spanish Internet users are attempting to leave the jurisdiction and come back with only information. The ISPs are the equivalent of train operators. How is prohibiting them from taking you to the border not an attempt to prevent you from doing something in another jurisdiction which is legal there?

> Doesn't the US claim global tax jurisdiction on its nationals?

It's one of the most astounding and outrageous things the US does and it ought to stop immediately, not least because people keep citing it as precedent to justify other bad choices.

▲

ben_w 3 days ago | parent [-]

> The Spanish Internet users are attempting to leave the jurisdiction and come back with only information. The ISPs are the equivalent of train operators. How is prohibiting them from taking you to the border not an attempt to prevent you from doing something in another jurisdiction which is legal there?

For that analogy to hold, I would need something equivalent to a US visa to post this comment that you are currently reading.

	▲	AnthonyMouse 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> For that analogy to hold, I would need something equivalent to a US visa to post this comment that you are currently reading. Only if the US required it. A country you're not a citizen of preventing you from coming in isn't the same thing as a country you are a citizen of preventing you from leaving. Consider it like this: Suppose you're in Europe and you want to communicate with someone in the US. You could do it in person by you going there, or by them coming to you, or both of you going to some third place to meet. Your country could prevent them from coming to you but not either of the other ones, and you can communicate with them if you can do any of the three. The internet only makes it more efficient.