I'm honestly surprised that the US doesn't have a legal framework to force ISPs to block IPs / DNS hostnames. I've been expecting that for 10+ years now, but it hasn't happened.
I think for the most part because it's not needed. Anything hosted on a .com, .net, .org (or any other TLD where the TLD's root DNS is managed by a US company) can be taken down with a court order. There's no need to involve ISPs.
In general they're not going to bother with IP blocking; once they've killed DNS, they're satisfied that most people will not be able to access it.
And for the most part, that's good enough. There's perhaps an argument that the US gov't should be blocking IPs/DNS of things like hacking rings and malware distributors that are hosted elsewhere, on TLDs out of their reach (where ISP blocking would probably be the only or at least best way), but they mainly only care about e.g. sites that threaten the copyright cartels, when it comes to legal takedowns, anyway. And for sites that host illegal content, they seem happy only prosecuting US residents who access them.
The same government that divested DNS after owning it? For years, ALL DNS was run by the US government. They decided to hand it over to a handful of organizations so no one could control it. Now, it looks like we will all have different versions, the same activity can have hugely different outcomes.
It's because the US is so powerful they can take down any controversial website. See how literally all services with more than 10 users say in their terms of service "we don't want anything that might violate US law".
US will use all manner of tools to extradite foreign citizens who have never been to the US because they broke US law.
Nobody has to worry about breaking Thai laws around defaming the King because Thailand isn’t a superpower with the ability to enforce its will beyond its borders.
Except what you wrote only applies to countries with extradition treaties with the US (meaning the government in those countries have agreed that US law can apply in their country too).
Not every country has this, so no, not "everyone has to be worried about breaking US law".
Regarding Thailand specifically, they have a principle of "double criminality", so people are only extraditable if what they're accused of is a crime both in Thailand and the country they're being extradited to. So maybe not the best example.
Besides, other countries have extradition treaties with other countries than the US too, even non-super power ones.
In general they're not going to bother with IP blocking; once they've killed DNS, they're satisfied that most people will not be able to access it.
And for the most part, that's good enough. There's perhaps an argument that the US gov't should be blocking IPs/DNS of things like hacking rings and malware distributors that are hosted elsewhere, on TLDs out of their reach (where ISP blocking would probably be the only or at least best way), but they mainly only care about e.g. sites that threaten the copyright cartels, when it comes to legal takedowns, anyway. And for sites that host illegal content, they seem happy only prosecuting US residents who access them.