zlacker

> That's the only way to properly conform to jurisdiction, amirite?

No, you're not? It's pretty obvious that if you try to, say, sell illegal drugs to my citizens, I as a country will come after you even if it's legal on your side.

The internet blurred the lines because you don't "show up" in the buyer's country but there's nothing new here: both seller and buyer need to respect the law.

>>riffra+(OP)
The thing about the Internet is it made cross-border interactions common and trivial.

If party A and B are interacting in jurisdictions A and B, which party has to abide by which jurisdiction's laws?

Is the consumer moving into the producer's jurisdiction or is the producer moving into the consumer's jurisdiction?

Laws tend to apply more to the business than the consumer around the world and it's probably fair that this remains to be true, but really it is a hard problem when to parties separated by a border are just sending messages back and forth and you're trying to figure out who has to follow which laws.

>>riffra+(OP)
The only thing the internet did is allow politicians to ignore the reality: Any business over the internet involving your country still includes people under the jurisdiction of that country, whether that's delivery services, financial services, advertisers or ISPs. That's where a country can enforce its laws.