[ridruejo]

This is a really well-written article. The whole thing is so absurd and this makes it so clear.

[cdfsdsadsa]

FWIW I agree with the intent of the Act, and am generally in favour of a sovereign firewall.

Edit: In a nutshell - almost every other transfer of goods and services across national borders is subject to quality standards. Why do we give a pass to a system that allows deep, individualised access to people's personal lives and mental processes?

[oytis]

I'd argue transfer of services is not really an issue. People buying services from a foreign entity is a pretty fringe case, and most legitimate businesses will try to establish a local presence for that anyway.

Sovereign firewalls are mostly used by countries that have them for censorship and surveillance, and I think letting governments use a pretext of digital services being able to avoid tolls and taxes to establish such a powerful tool would be a huge mistake.

[probably_wrong]

Right now you're downvoted for expressing an opinion that I believe deserves a deeper discussion.

I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't, but I also understand that allowing a foreign power (let's say Russia, although "the US" works just as fine) to freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns without any recourse doesn't look good either. And while I agree with "when in doubt aim for the option with more freedom", I can understand those who share your position.

[Aachen]

Because it's about the free exchange of information, not another trade war