I’m pretty on board with John Perry Barlow’s declaration of the independence of cyberspace[0], so I guess my preference would have to be none at all.
It seems obvious to me that things can happen online without jurisdiction, just like things can happen in international waters or outer space, and that though these can be governed by treaties or agreements, they cannot usefully be said to occur fully under any one or other jurisdiction.
The reality will be more nuanced than the idealised vision of [0], of course, but it will still be profoundly different to the reality that most regulators and governments would like to see, too. (Just like the reality around narcotics bears little resemblance to the world envisaged by the architects of the war on drugs.)
How this turns out remains to be seen, but it’s clear to me that the right thing to do is not necessarily for everyone to lie down and take whatever the legislators come up with. Civil disobedience is a powerful force for democratic change.
It seems obvious to me that things can happen online without jurisdiction, just like things can happen in international waters or outer space, and that though these can be governed by treaties or agreements, they cannot usefully be said to occur fully under any one or other jurisdiction.
The reality will be more nuanced than the idealised vision of [0], of course, but it will still be profoundly different to the reality that most regulators and governments would like to see, too. (Just like the reality around narcotics bears little resemblance to the world envisaged by the architects of the war on drugs.)
How this turns out remains to be seen, but it’s clear to me that the right thing to do is not necessarily for everyone to lie down and take whatever the legislators come up with. Civil disobedience is a powerful force for democratic change.
[0] https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence