Perhaps the regulators should also step up their battle against any solicitation (also known as “prostitution” in some regimes, and “matchmaking” in others) as it clearly is something vile not as acceptable in the UK as, say, Amsterdam. Any company that provides matchmaking services must be licensed by the UK or prohibit UK access to its content.

Once those are successful, the next step is to outlaw any speech which offends the UK citizenry, no matter from whence it comes, to ensure that they are not subject to it.
Any publisher of online content must ensure it’s licensed by the UK or prohibit the UK access to its content.

Now read all that and replace the UK with Iran or China or Dubhai, or any number of repressive and/or terrorist-sponsoring nations. Would we think it rational to have their laws control the behavior of anyone outside their territories? Would it be right for them to stifle free speech, match.com, and online gambling because it’s not legal in their country?

I disagree with this ruling entirely. I don’t see “Web 3.0” as an improvement but rather a direct and striking ENCROACHMENT AGAINST SOVEREIGNITY.

After all, if I, as a citizen of Country A must allow the rules of Country Z to override what constrains my lawful vs unlawful behavior, then Country A of which I am a citizen has lost its ability to enact laws that govern its people, and the eventual “Rule of Law” will be that of the least-common-factor of the most repressive and controlling regimes.

Ehud Gavron
Tucson AZ