In those cases it seems like the law does prevent state level regulation of those things, because the state is only allowed to regulate commerce happening within its borders, not what its residents do elsewhere (although they can still also regulate the use of fireworks and airguns, but enforcement is more difficult, for instance where I am they sometimes send out notices in the mail warning that it's against the law for individuals to be setting off fireworks but there's always a massive decentralized fireworks show every 4th of July anyway).

Somehow with the internet, the location of the server isn't the thing that matters, it's whose computer is accessing it and where that person and computer is located, and the liability is on the server not the user. IMO it should not work that way, because then every state with regressive politics has a stranglehold on the whole internet.

[–] bigfondue@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Yea that's my point. Unless these companies are hosted in MS, have offices, or sell ads there, there's nothing legally they can do. But rule of law doesn't seem to doing so hot these days, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Federal gov stepped in pressure companies into complying.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 hours ago

Unless these companies are hosted in MS, have offices, or sell ads there, there’s nothing legally they can do.

Is that really how it works? Haven't legal challenges to these sorts of laws already been appealed up to the supreme court and they were upheld?