> Then no country should have legal authority over companies operating in the country but based internationally. Not sure I see how your logic has led you ther

> Then no country should have legal authority over companies operating in the country but based internationally. Not sure I see how your logic has led you there. If a company (regardless of where they are headquartered) is operating in your country, then you necessarily have some sort of jurisdiction over it: - If they are using servers or domain names hosted in your country, you can seize them. - If they are making use of your country's financial system, you can ban them from that system. - If they are shipping physical products to your country's residents, you can intercept those packages at customs. - If any employees (or, better, officers) of that company are physically present in your country, you can fine or arrest them if they don't comply. - If you have an extradition treaty with the country where they're operating, you can ask that country for help. If they decline, that's unfortunate for you, but that's life. And right, in the end, if there's no "presence" aside from people in your country accessing foreign websites, then you can (given the right legal mechanisms) order ISPs in your country to block those sites. I don't see why any foreign-operated website should have any obligation to examine your laws and pro-actively block your residents from their site if needed; if you want your laws enforced on your residents, then... enforce them on your residents. > But saying the internet should be a fully unregulated hellscape is not a sensible position here. While I do see a few low-effort comments to that effect, I don't think that's a common opinion here. I don't even think the person you're replying to holds that opinion.