[golemotron]

I'll applaud the first large US company that leaves the EU market entirely and makes a claim of non-jurisdiction. It's overdue. In fact, I don't think they have to go that far. Other countries are free to block internet services or sanction their own citizens for using them.

It should not follow that placing a service on the web makes you subject to the jurisdiction of anyone who chooses to use it.

[bantunes]

Why should it not? If you're providing a service (presumably for profit), shouldn't you be bound by rules other commercial service providers have to follow in that jurisdiction as well? If not, you'd be at a massive advantage.

[golemotron]

It's not being provided in that jurisdiction. If you are hosted/domiciled in a country foreign users are entering another jurisdiction when they access the service.

[bantunes]

If you're taking money in that jurisdiction, why is it not "being provided"?

[golemotron]

Another way to look at it is that customer is sending money to another jurisdiction.

Countries can and do pass laws about whom their citizens can trade with. It seems like that is a better route than inventing jurisdiction over foreign companies.

[bantunes]

Again, if you "pass laws about whom their citizens can trade with" isn't that having jurisdiction over a foreign company?

[golemotron]

Not at all. They never are subject to an enforceable court decision. Your citizens, on the other hand, are.