> A US business needs to be governed by US law, not whatever law that a user chooses to access their site from

So if I run a business from a country where cocaine is legal, I should be able to sell to users in the US? Are you sure you thought this through? Seems you're letting your emotions get in the way of your reasoning.

Absolutely. A US user sends you money, you send them product.

US customs takes the product at the border, and if you transit the border expect to be arrested. Your customer should expect to be arrested as well.

Maybe you get put on a list so US banks can't send you money anymore too.

So same thing happens here, except we're talking packets, and going across wires. They got caught using illegal packets across wires in the country in question, so they get fined. If you have legal presence, then that entity gets the fine.

Makes perfect sense for me in both cases.

If they have presence, then yeah. You have to follow the laws everywhere you have presence. Otherwise you get arrested. (more or less)

That's why the EU requires presence in the EU, when you want to process EU data. This IS exactly what happens here.

If you don't have a presence in the EU, then the EU can't require anything of you.

X does have a presence in the EU though, because it wants to make money by selling EU citizens data.

That's not indication of presence. You can do that from across the border.

X does have presence in the EU, but it's because they have offices/employees, equipment, and accounts housed there.

The EU may say anyone who deals in the data of their citizens is subject to their jurisdiction, but enforcement on those entities without actual presence will be difficult.

> The EU may say anyone who deals in the data of their citizens is subject to their jurisdiction, but enforcement on those entities without actual presence will be difficult.

Not particularly difficult.

Like Brasil already did, and for similar reasons, the EU can go after everything Musk owns. Even with Tesla sales dropping, they're not zero. Starlink is currently available.

> Maybe you get put on a list so US banks can't send you money anymore too.

This is a good example, because the US government routinely passes laws that prevent people from transacting using the dollar system (which is basically the world financial system) and this is OK, but the EU requiring companies that operate in their market to obey different laws is not OK?

I don't really get the logic here, but perhaps I'm missing something.

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't believe RIPE is a US organisation or branch of the US government.

Any attempts by the US government to assert control of a foreign non-profit entity such as RIPE is only going to end in tears. I suspect would also empower those pushing to balkanise the internet should the independence of RIPE or ARIN be violated.

I'm not sure region specific intranets is a future anyone should want.

> Any attempts by the US government to assert control of a foreign non-profit entity such as RIPE is only going to end in tears.

The irony of how blind you are. EU trying to enforce censorship laws on American companies will end in tears.

If those US companies operate in foreign countries, then yes they will be following the law in those countries or they won't be operating there. And no, the only tears flowing will be from those who don't understand how laws and borders work.

This has always been true. E.g. Google and others complying with Chinese laws, or not operating at all in places like Iran. X can simply cease operations in EU if they don't like it.

Would you accept or the opposite situation then? A foreign company operating in and violating US law?

> A US business needs to be governed by US law, not whatever law that a user chooses to access their site from.

Why is that? I think you can reasonably argue that a user should enjoy the protections offered by law in the place they live.

They can, they just need to use the EU equivalent of <app> they want. No one is forcing EU residents to use <app>.

You've got it the wrong way around. No one is forcing X to operate in the EU. If they want to do that, they need to follow EU laws.

it can apply US law in the US, yes. in the EU, it needs to follow EU law.

To be fair, it's a relatively new concept for many American companies, that they need to follow the laws of the locations they operate in, some companies need a bit of a push to properly understand how the world outside of the US culture bubble works.

It's actually not. US companies are very used to it and frequently comply with local laws (e.g. in China and elsewhere). What's happening here is a vocal minority is trying to push for some notion of US dominance over other countries.

The current administration has openly stated their intent to bully selected countries they don't like in various ways, but especially when it relates to their ability to push US propaganda to foreign places via companies like X.

And US laws too because lets be honest, EU is a vassal state.

The current US admin oviously treats it as such, but the EU is 27* nations who don't want to be vassalised* and who work together* to project collective strength on par with the US and China.

* except possibly Hungary.

This is pretty much the position of China when it comes to IP law. It's compelling in some senses, but notably the U.S. does not agree.