> GDPR
Only applies to EU citizens' personal data, so while technically extraterritorial it doesn't feel like overreach in the same way.
> Universal jurisdiction laws
Rightly controversial when applied beyond things that are internationally agreed to be crimes against humanity, like torture or genocide.
> China's National Security Law
A perfect example of the kind of thing that the US used to define itself in opposition to.
Nations are sovereign and those with the might to push their requirements on others can do so. But I liked it better when we had a sense of the value of an open international order, where things like internet protocols were shared standards that everyone would collaborate on other than a handful of pariah states.
The difference between any of these is just a matter of opinion on what sovereignty means, what or who or where it applies to, what is a “human rights violation”, and who has the bigger britches to back it up. /shrug
Meh. You can fall back on might makes right and a Hobbesian war of all against all, or you can recognise that the Westphalian system has brought immense value to humanity and is worth trying to preserve and build on. There will always be disputes about how to extend our principles into new domains, but that doesn't mean those disputes are insoluble or that a few disagreements mean we should tear down the whole project.