> 1. regional censorship will be applied at a network level — e.g. upon “Indian IP Addresses” or “Indian Phone Numbers” — which is not a good solution becaus

> 1. regional censorship will be applied at a network level — e.g. upon “Indian IP Addresses” or “Indian Phone Numbers” — which is not a good solution because the Internet does not respect national boundaries, nor does it work that way: e.g. VPNs exist and are already used to bypass these approaches. 2. regional censorship will be applied at a human level — e.g. upon “Indian Users” — which is not a good solution because it assumes that (a) online anonymity should and can be effectively stopped, (b) national identity is straightforwardly applicable to humans (how about “dual nationals?”) and (c) platforms must know the nationality of their users merely to function, e.g. to send cat pictures. 3. global censorship will be applied blindly as the union of regional censorships — so people in the USA will not be able to critically discuss Indian politics, and absolutely nobody would be able to discuss China. This would be highly illiberal and destructive of public discourse. It's going to be neither of these, but close to #3. Users will be able to discuss anything (withing their nationality's rules) but they would be not visible to user outside their own--or atleast not available to the citizens/users of the place is question. The seeds have all ready been planted with this Russian propaganda/disinformation/whatever campaign (not trying to argue about the veracity of it, but it's interesting that the public apparently cares more about who said it than what was actually said). Even in the USA, supposed home of the free, we are seeing that free speech doesn't seem to apply if you are not a citizen. Can't have weak American minds exposed to wrongthink from abroad.